Supporting What is Good and Remembering Our Limits

What follows is an interesting essay, especially the bit on the Rite of the Rose of Cross Gold.  Perhaps oddly named, the organization is seemingly a very positive development of the type that one would hope would be supported by grand lodges.  If not supported or encouraged, one would expect that such a thing would have to be ignored and it would operate freely with no interference or commentary. No grand lodge has any imaginable jurisdiction over such organizations or the involvement in such by its membership, and it would be un-Masonic and absurd for any to claim any jurisdiction. It should be stressed that WE are not at all acquainted with the details and not sure that the Grand Lodge of Georgia was not in fact either supportive or non-interfering. Our reprinting is not about the particulars of this situation but problems arising from grand lodges' leadership that perhaps have mistaken their roles and purview and the purpose of Freemasonry. If that is the case we can hope that all involved will rediscover their right course.

The following essay is by Brother Griffin, a Master Mason from Texas, and is reprinted from his website The Griffin's Lair.


Masons are naturally predisposed to give their loyalty and the benefit of their doubts to those who have ascended to leadership positions. But these virtues, coupled with complacency and a lack of information, make the fraternity a fertile field for men whose intentions are not to serve the ideals and spirit of Masonic Light, but rather to serve narrow-mindedness... and an anti-intellectual shallowness.


Masons everywhere ought to be outraged at the foolish indignities and blatant tyranny fostered in the name of Masonry by Grand Lodges across the United States. What follows is an accounting of reprehensible events and trends in Masonry that are becoming all too common.


A number of Grand Lodges continue to refuse recognition to Prince Hall Freemasonry on the flimsiest grounds of traditional rules of regularity. Somehow the men of power in those Grand Lodges believe this course of action is more virtuous than extending a fraternal hand to generations of good men who have sworn before God to uphold the same honorable obligations. No matter what the true intentions may be for this continued segregation of Masonry, to the general public, and especially to many who might otherwise join the fraternity, it is nothing short of racism.


Some Grand Lodges are taking steps to eliminate the right of Masons to freely express their own opinions about our fraternity. There have been edicts and rulings that Grand Lodge censors must approve personal Masonic websites, or their owners can face expulsion. In other words, these Grand Lodges no longer respect a Mason's ability, much less his right, to speak about Masonry in accord with his own conscience and his understanding of the obligations. If in speaking a Mason violates an obligation, then let him suffer the consequences. But it is nothing less than tyranny to eliminate the actual liberties of all in order to prevent the potential offenses of a few.


The freedom of association is also under attack. A number of Grand Lodges already have regulations forbidding Masons from joining, supporting or organizing Masonic bodies not already on a sanctioned list. So long as an organization is not claiming to make Masons, so long as it is not in violation of the Ancient Landmarks, and so long as it does not seek to usurp the authority of the regional Grand Lodge, then it is absurd for a Grand Lodge to assume any lawful authority to interfere with the business of that organization...


Think carefully about these infringements on free speech and association. It means that in some jurisdictions Masons have less freedom with regard to their organization than members of political parties, churches or schools do with theirs. Is this consistent with an order that has long prided itself on being an instrument of liberty?


As a general rule in most jurisdictions, Masons who seek a deeper philosophical, psychological and spiritual experience and understanding of Masonry are scoffed or shunned as "fringe Masons." Discussions of Masonry as a system of mythical initiation and philosophical enlightenment are too often discouraged in lodge meetings. The message is that the language of Masonic ritual is not to be taken seriously, and that Masons with such interests had best keep quiet. It is another tactic of totalitarian regimes to keep their people uneducated, and to silence and ridicule the most learned.


There is also a bitter generation gap emerging in the fraternity. Many Masons of the World War II and Baby Boomer generations do not understand the needs and wants of Generation-X Masons and the Millenials that are now coming of age for candidacy. In searching for excuses for Masonry's membership ills, older Masons in influential positions have publicly accused young American males of being lazy, stupid, immoral and heathenistic. Of course, this accusation is also used as a justification for throwing out pieces of ritual and symbolism that are no longer understood and valued by the very same men who claim to be the defenders of tradition. These attitudes and circumstances coupled with unprecedented membership campaigns clearly communicate to the men of younger generations that their only value to the fraternity is as sources of income and labor. The meaning of Masonic membership is delivered as "Show up, pay up and shut up."


Masons at large must start consistently confronting such injustices, or what is left of the fraternity will be nothing but a pretentious farce. Already it is too often an insult to the great bygone defenders of enlightenment and liberty that we now publicly advertise as exemplars of Masonry.


Even now, the Grand Lodge of Georgia is moving toward setting a precedent for the expulsion of young, hardworking Masons with good intentions. The Rite of the Rose Cross of Gold (RRCG) was created by a group of well educated professionals, some of them holding Masonic offices, who wanted a place within the fraternity that lives up to its promises of brotherly love and assistance in the quest for further Masonic Light. These regularly initiated and loyal brothers had grown weary of the ridicule and resistance they had suffered from brethren who want their fraternity to be little more than a dinner club for grumpy old men. To their credit, the RRCG website has drawn an impressive amount of attention, and Masons across the country and in other nations have shown enthusiastic interest in what the RRCG is offering.


The young men of the RRCG asked no more than to be allowed a corner under the umbrella of the Grand Lodge of Georgia where they and future like-minded brothers could pursue their legitimate Masonic interests without ruffling the feathers of others. They were not seeking any status beyond that held by such organizations as the Shrine, the Scottish Rite, the Allied Masonic Degrees or the Masonic Rosicrucians. They publicly and privately attested that they were not going into the business of making Masons, and that they would not admit anyone to their ranks who was not already a "regular" Master Mason in good standing. To demonstrate their desire to operate in the good graces of the Grand Lodge, they were scrupulous in providing the RRCG's financial records, founding documents and rituals. Not only did they provide access, they requested critique and guidance from the Grand Lodge on anything they might need to amend in order to operate in amity with the Grand Lodge.


The Grand Lodge of Georgia did not respond to the RRCG with any critique or guidance. Instead they are now responding with the threat to expel these honorable brothers if they do not renounce their affiliation with the RRCG and denounce it as "clandestine". In preparation for this move, the Grand Master had to issue an edict that effectively ignored the traditional Masonic meaning of clandestine and actually redefined it to suit his desires. When the RRCG leaders requested clarification on whether or not the edict applied to their organization, they received no response.


The intention of the edict has only now become clear after being sneaked through the Grand Lodge, hidden within a package of other proposals and left undiscussed. Now the officers of Georgia lodges are going to be pressured to bring charges against friends and brothers with whom they have no quarrel, most of them active members and leaders in their lodges and other Masonic organizations.


This state of affairs is organizational insanity, if not outright megalomania. It is asinine that the Grand Lodge of Georgia would take such actions while simultaneously complaining about declining membership. If the Grand Lodge doesn't want the kind of men in the RRCG, then what kind does it want? It is sickening to realize that the Grand Lodge is not above allowing convicted felons and known child molesters to retain and even regain membership, but they find it impossible to tolerate the presence of good men who only want to enrich Masonry.


The situation(s listed are) repulsive, but all of these points ought to raise red flags in the minds of every good Mason...


It isn't everyone's calling to publicly battle injustice on the front lines, but it is time for every conscientious Mason to do something. In some places and situations, Masonic reform requires public conflict, even legal action, for that is the only way that justice can be served. Already there are brothers leaving the mainstream jurisdictiions to join "irregular" and more enlightened Grand Lodges. Some brothers may find the best way to serve Masonic reform is by quietly creating change from within the existing power structures. In the more progressive mainstream jurisdictions, Masons ought to be expressing their concerns about such things to their own Grand Lodges, for sometimes the scrutiny of other Grand Lodges is the most effective means of encouraging change. Other Masons may wish to simply join in Internet discussions of these problems as a way of helping to ensure that they do not continue to be swept under the rug.


There is one form of service that all can perform in this cause, and that is prayer. Masonry claims to be dedicated to the Glory of God, and we are taught to seek the blessings of the Great Architect of the Universe upon all great and noble labors. We are now in a time when the greatest and most noble labor we can perform is to return the fraternity to its calling as a school of moral virtue, philosophical enlightenment and spiritual illumination...

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, Lionel Vilbert, 35 p., 1923

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 by Lionel Vibert 

Having devoted his attention for several years to pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, Bro. Lionel Vibert  (Past Master of Quator Coronati 2076, UGLE) specialized on the Grand Lodge era the records of which are still so confused or incomplete that, in spite of the great amount of work accomplished by scholars in the past, work remains yet to be done. The paper below is critical and often cited with much of our current understanding owing to judgment and scholarship.  It was one of the author's first published studies of the Grand Lodge era. To us American Masons to whom Masonic jurisprudence is an almost necessary preoccupation, such a work offers crucial light on that formative period, and especially on Dr. Anderson whose Constitutions and our understanding of their context, references and validity are groundwork for our laws.  CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ESSAY

Overlooked Reform: The Grand Lodges

 

^The Way Things Are ^

 ^The Way Things Should Be ^

With all the wonderful things going on in Freemasonry to better local or individual lodges (Traditional observance, affinity, European concept, etc.)  and bring them out of these challenging times there is unfortunately little effort made to reform the grand lodges and to make them once again administrations in service to the ultimate and supreme body: the individual lodge.

Grand lodges today are living on the legacy (including the financial legacy) of what was left by hundreds of years of Masons.  With this legacy in hand grand lodges oversee a much reduced membership and base of activities; yet they are more thoroughly taxing and burdening constituent lodges and claiming greater authority than ever before.

Many areas of ownership and management, including property, funds and investments that might have otherwise been stewarded by attentive local lodges at a scale manageable at their level of expertise became centralized and mismanaged.

In the future, grand lodges will have few assets left to liquidate or mismanage.  Even at the end of liquidation of considerable assets, the state of finances in most grand lodges at this point proves that grand lodges should never be managers of assets that might otherwise be in the purview of the local lodge.  They are not equipped to do so and officers are not selected on the basis of their competence in such matters.  This again goes to problematic idea of organizational stratification, with grand lodges at the top of a pyramid.

Many grand lodges have all but tossed aside the notion of equality.  They have become homes for political players, even for men frustrated in the real world of open competition and qualification. Titles of honor of doing service has became reason for usurpation of authority.  Owing to this error- plagued state of things, the lodges themselves become distracted from the work of being healthy lodges.

Rather lodge leaders undertake to become subordinate in all things, as they believe that ingratiating oneself with the grand lodge officers, eventually becoming grand officers is a progressive degree system in itself. In this topsy-turvy state, levels of officers in the grand lodges, and their involvement and authority have become more meaningful than the lodges themselves. 

This unintended hierarchy by its very nature gives itself to corruption, cronyism and many other vices that strangle constituent lodges.  The most glaringly results of this self generated bureaucracy are to drive away new blood and to shut the doors to new ideas.  As such, conditions have been created only to sustain the oldest members and ultimately, keep a lesser quality of membership that cannot provide a challenge to authority- in essence a kakistocracy.  Practically speaking, authority over policies that would rectify these problems have been left to these same grand lodge officers who have no motivation to do so.
 

By putting such important matters into the hands of grand lodges we are not simply leaving them to fail but to fail for all of us. This is obviously not the only or even its primary area of failure.  Grand lodges are failing in almost every way conceivable and because of it the Craft is indisputably in free-fall.

In the present, it can be supposed that the grand lodges are why proven reforms and approaches, such as affinity lodges, traditional observance and European concept lodges are not more prevalent.  As grand lodges resist changes and continue to support failed and dysfunctional models and policies (often for the political ends of  grand officers) lodges languish and die. Indeed, the bureaucratic model of the powerful grand lodge saves and protects the sick lodge while driving away the healthy.

One is left to ask a question: "Besides issues of recognition and some physical facilities, why would anyone deal with many of the grand lodges of today?"

Historically, grand lodges were initiated to support individual, independent Masonic lodges which existed from time immemorial.  Today this has become the other way around. We have accorded to the grand lodge roles which they did not rightfully have, nor should they have. It should be of little surprise then, when we accord the grand lodge bureaucracies the role and powers of the lodge and give them monopolies that Freemasonry has failed both at the level of the lodge and the grand lodge level.

We need only to look back into the long history of Freemasonry to see that lodges that were more self reliant, rooted in communities or constituencies and responsible for their meeting spaces, furnishings, regalia etc., were much healthier.  The reasons are obvious- their membership was responsible, avoided waste and engaged in the care and generosity that come with such a conditions. 

What is often considered the first grand lodge (UGLE) did not form either with a real or imagined authority to usurp lodges or assume jurisdictional control.  The first four lodges that met at the Goose and Gridiron  did not start Freemasonry and consisted of a tiny fraction of Freemasons and lodges. (And indeed so did the five "Ancient" lodges that shortly after formed a competing grand lodge.) The UGLE knew they could not make extravagant claims since only a few lodges took part in the UGLE, while many older lodges existed (and  lodges exist to this day, in amity in overlapping jurisdiction.)

In America, our grand lodges have taken on more authority and made greater claims  than the UGLE when our own lodges sprang from their own authority, abandoning* their European mother lodges which gave  authority to operate, if they ever had such authority (and many did not). The "Lodge at Fredricksburg" in which our nation's first president, Bro. George Washington notes he was initiated had no warrant or charter until many years after Washington was made a Mason.

This leads us to search for the basis of authority, by law or established custom that current conditions in American Freemasonry rest. 

The authority and responsibilities of the grand lodges as they now exist do not find grounding in Anderson's recounting of the constitution and even less grounding in the constitutions and descriptions of Freemasonry of others before him. The frequent splits, schisms, competition, etc., in and among grand lodges probably owe to this. 

The argument about the historical role is clear.  To trace American grand lodges is to trace exercises in  independence, and perhaps usurpation and arrogation from those mother lodges of England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, France and so forth.  Legitimacy in the transfer or  external awarding of authority then, is not a valid issue.  Features of recognition or amity have not shown  themselves to be hard and fast rules and in most cases the actual yardstick for recognition (race, politics, financial gain) have been at best pragmatic and often deplorable.

American values of diversity, checks and balances, freedom, adaptation and localized authority came after the first grand lodge was introduced in Britain.  Freemasonry helped introduce these ideas even before they became popular or were implemented in larger society.  In America we took these ideas further both in our lodges and our larger society. We Freemasons in America seemed to have gone backward though, even from the earliest times when Freemasonry toiled under monarchy but still held its lodges as independent.  We have unintentionally re-instituted in some cases inequality and even tyranny and this has, predictably a state of decline.

The real discussion is about the practical work of reforming the grand lodges to be a supportive substructure, in service to lodges.  The grand lodge is not Freemasonry, it is support of Freemasonry and to that position it must return for the well being of the Craft. No solutions or alternatives should be off the table as we look to  how to achieve this.
 
I submit that we should look at making use of alternative grand lodges that operate in different jurisdictions.  We as Americans know and history shows us that without competition deterioration, and corruption generally sets in.

Among the grand lodges we have just such deterioration-  this is undeniable.  Most of that which is today lain at the feet of the lodge- the plummeting numbers,  failing lodges,  lack of adaptation, repeated stories of mismanagement, and the overall perilous condition of the Craft in America are mostly issues that find their roots not in the lodge but the grand lodges.

The grand lodges should not be blamed.  It was the lodges that turned over their responsibilities and authority to grand lodges  and their centralized bureaucracy, and that had predictable consequences.  

Our hope should be to reform the grand lodges where reform is needed.  (It should be noted that not all grand lodges are in equal need of reform.)  But this begs two questions:  If there is no competition and these grand lodges have not reformed themselves to the present date even with the present state of Freemasonry, what hope is there?  And what are are alternatives? 

One alternative is to look for new grand grand lodges. Continental style (used here to cover "grand orient" lodges that may or may not require faith in deity) lodges under various jurisdictions have a long history in the U.S.  In recent years with the growth of  immigrants from countries that have Continental style Masonry, Continental style lodges have become a growing but low profile feature in the American Masonic landscape.  It is unclear what type of authority is exercised and what are the practices of these Continental style lodges in the U.S.

Among some Continental Masonic practice, the issue of religion is entirely at the discretion of individual. This has been used as an excuse for certain other grand lodges not to recognize Continental grand lodges but in truth, Anglo-American Freemasonry's denial of recognition of much of Continental Freemasonry has a long history rooted in jurisdictional competition rather than religion. 

Regardless of the reason, most Continental style lodges in the U.S. suffer from a lack of recognition  by Anglo American Freemasonry. It is natural that for many Americans Masons Anglo-American amity (and amity within established lodges in the Anglophone world) as it exists is something worth maintaining.  This is likely to be the most significant factor retarding the growth of Continental Freemasonry in the U.S.  One would assume that with time rifts would heal, particularly if American Masonry working (at least initially) under Continental jurisdiction were to assume the more conservative American practices particularly regarding religion.

Anglo-American amity however is not a goal that requires working within the present "single grand lodge per jurisdiction" system; there are options for healthy competition.  

In much of the country we see Prince Hall Affiliated (PHA) grand lodges flourishing and doing so in a fashion that most grand lodges can only look at longingly.  In some cases race has been an issue.  Even with the growth of Whites and Hispanics in Prince Hall grand lodges, not enough people have been willing to join Prince Hall lodges who are not Black to create the sort of healthy, competitive alternative that Prince Hall grand lodges offer.  I have spoken to PHA grand lodge leaders and have found them more than amenable to various arrangements that would result in growth without jeopardizing their own character or that of new lodges.  Apparently there is a history of PHA grand lodges doing just with Grand Orient (Continental style) lodges and lodges of exile from the Arab world, Latin America, Asia and Africa. PHA then has chiefly as a draw back the persistence of racism in American perspectives that would impede it acting as a vehicle for healthy growth of Freemasonry in the U.S.

Further afield, there has been  a practice by other major grand lodges throughout the world to abstain from chartering lodges in the U.S.  Yet many grand lodges such as the Grande Loge Nationale Française, the Grand Lodge of Scotland or some of Nordic and Scandinavian (distinctly Christian in nature) and Latin American Lodges are in amity with the UGLE  and American grand lodges   They also have lodges abroad, often sharing jurisdictions with other grand lodges they mutually recognize (and some they do not.) Usually I hear the same answer when speaking to these international grand lodges:  they are more than willing to charter lodges in the U.S. but the key issues are that no one has petitioned them, or their are logistic problems particularly with language and translation (seemingly easy to overcome but few apparently attempt to do so.)

There is another alternative which is the growth of the "nationally based" constituent lodge.  By that I mean lodges that operate in one jurisdiction pulling many of their members from other jurisdictions.  These lodges usually do their "work" geographically within and under a certain jurisdiction but not otherwise hindered from the brotherly actions that occur among Masons of the same lodge and they are free to visit other lodges as well.  (Examples might be those affinity lodges based in some nationally important locale such Washington D.C., operating under that jurisdiction with Masons from throughout the country. Such nationally based lodges have have a long history and have grown as organizations with Masonic origins have rediscovered their roots and opened affinity lodges.

At times there have been policies of grand lodges requiring "releases" from territorial jurisdictions. I cannot imagine that this impediment would not quickly fall out of use if it was actually rigorously enforced. Most Americans would find either the practice itself (including providing such information to trigger this policy) to be insulting  and  repugnant to the very basic notions of American  and Masonic values.  Theoretically it would put a person in the ownership of a particular jurisdiction like chattel or unwitting inhabitants of territorial divisions devised by con artists and hucksters.

Then there is option of the formulation of new grand lodges.  This obviously is not unheard of; new grand lodges spring forth every few years, some failing, and others succeeding.  The success of these new lodges in achieving Masonic goals are seldom assessed or challenged by established American  lodges. Instead (because of political and financial interests of), established grand lodges usually dismiss and denounce these efforts. At a time when Freemasonry is in unprecedented decline any new grand lodge that survives probably should be commended. There are visible weaknesses however.  Since the real benefits that grand lodges provide in this day and age are, as mentioned, facilities and recognition, the two essential benefits of new or "independent" grand lodges do not exist.  A third benefit which would be the shared values of the lodge might run into the fact that those most animated by the existence of a new grand lodge may have liberal or innovative ideas that fall outside of the acceptable notions of most unhappy Masons or those practices that would be mainstream enough to eventually garner recognition (or at least respect). 

New grand lodges in the U.S. often look elsewhere, particularly to Continental lodges for amity where they are more likely to find it if they prove themselves worthy of the same.  A valid criticism is that if these lodges were to instead look at the earlier mentioned option of associating themselves under existing grand lodges, they would bring their spirit of reform and the success of their lodges and quality of their work would be easier for other lodges to ascertain.

Whatever the best options may be to remedy the problems-  reform movements, increased competition from grand lodges, grand lodges working with Masons who reside in various jurisdictions, new grand lodges, it is time to implement something for the sake of saving Freemasonry.

American values reject what we often see in our grand lodges:  excess and ostentation, cronyism, obsession with rank, centralized power, regalism, rule by decree, monopoly. One of the greatest reforms that can be made is to  return the authority of the lodge to the lodge. This would go a log way to rescuing the Craft from its declining state. 



*The original Prince Hall Lodge seemed to have been forgotten by  their mother lodge rather than the other way round, thus legitimately inheriting authority rather than usurping it, but this article  focuses on "mainstream" American grand lodges. It does call to mind the hypocrisy that many American grand lodges with less legitimate historical claim have refused to recognize Prince Hall lodges.

More Freemasonry in Popular Culture

The late great actor John Edward Thaw, in his popular British series "Detective Morse" plays a police inspector who becomes suspicious of Freemasons in the police department, only to find that a villain used imagery associated with Freemasonry as part of a plot to mislead the inspector while framing him for murder. It is not really a treatment of Masonry but the use of popular perspectives on the fraternity in the U.K. as an incidental plot device.

Best Holiday Wishes Brethren and Friends

The Passing Of The Year
by Brother Robert William Service (1874 - 1958)

My glass is filled, my pipe is lit,
My den is all a cosy glow;
And snug before the fire I sit,
And wait to feel the old year go.
I dedicate to solemn thought
Amid my too-unthinking days,
This sober moment, sadly fraught
With much of blame, with little praise.

Old Year! upon the Stage of Time
You stand to bow your last adieu;
A moment, and the prompter’s chime
Will ring the curtain down on you.
Your mien is sad, your step is slow;
You falter as a Sage in pain;
Yet turn, Old Year, before you go,
And face your audience again.

That sphinx-like face, remote, austere,
Let us all read, whate’er the cost:
O Maiden! why that bitter tear?
Is it for dear one you have lost?
Is it for fond illusion gone?
For trusted lover proved untrue?
O sweet girl-face, so sad, so wan
What hath the Old Year meant to you?

And you, O neighbour on my right
So sleek, so prosperously clad!
What see you in that aged wight
That makes your smile so gay and glad?
What opportunity unmissed?
What golden gain, what pride of place?
What splendid hope? O Optimist!
What read you in that withered face?

And You, deep shrinking in the gloom,
What find you in that filmy gaze?
What menace of a tragic doom?
What dark, condemning yesterdays?
What urge to crime, what evil done?
What cold, confronting shape of fear?
O haggard, haunted, hidden One
What see you in the dying year?

And so from face to face I flit,
The countless eyes that stare and stare;
Some are with approbation lit,
And some are shadowed with despair.
Some show a smile and some a frown;
Some joy and hope, some pain and woe:
Enough! Oh, ring the curtain down!
Old weary year! it’s time to go.

My pipe is out, my glass is dry;
My fire is almost ashes too;
But once again, before you go,
And I prepare to meet the New:
Old Year! a parting word that’s true,
For we’ve been comrades, you and I—
I thank God for each day of you;
There! bless you now! Old Year, good-bye!

M:.W:. Bro. Richard Fletcher Resigns

(Photo: From left: Judy Fletcher, Nicolas Cage, Darlene Alban,

and Richard E. Fletcher, at the premier of

National Treasure: Book of Secrets in New York City in December 2007)

M:.W:. Brother Richard Fletcher has announced his resignation as Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Association of North America, to be effective at the close if the MSA's annual meeting in Denver next February. He has served with great devotion and courage in this position since 1987. Below is an excerpt from one of his initiatives, "It’s About Time!" a report completing a study undertaken by a special task force of the Masonic Information Center Steering Committee that focused on the need for Masonic "Public Awareness". The most important part to me is the part focused on Masons image of themselves and the Craft which is what is excerpted below. (A MSA video follows that.)

Facing the Facts and Accepting the Challenge

“Freemasonry evolved from 18th century European enlightened thinking. Today, Masonry is shaped by the 19th century concept of social benevolence and the 20th century emphasis on ritual as the completion of a Mason’s education about the fraternity.”
 

— MIC Task Force

In order to evaluate present-day Freemasonry, we had to assess the Fraternity’s strengths and weaknesses. The Task Force proceeded methodically to question Masonry’s past, present and future. We asked a series of penetrating questions, listed our findings, and then completed each section with a summary formed by observations and conclusions. In order to properly determine a course of action for a Masonic Public Awareness Program, we believe it imperative that we understand, as a fraternity, where we have been, where we are today, and what happened in the intervening years.

Forthright answers to the questions we posed did not come easily and required an enormous amount of soul searching and critical evaluation.

Much of the data used in this report came from United States sources because those were the ones most readily available and accessible to our Task Force. We have pointed out where data was specifically from a United States source, but we have reason to believe that data from Canada would be almost identical.

For instance, there were no Canadian membership statistics available to us unless we laboriously went through, year by year, the figures from each Grand Lodge to determine if the same trends occurred as in the United States. Because we have had many discussions with Canadian Masons, there is no doubt in the minds of the Task Force that the data trends are the same.

So this report needs to be considered in the context of North America, including the United States and Canada, even though, on occasion, we list a United States source.

Exploring the patterns of Masonry

The deliberations of the Task Force were lengthy and lively. Below are the questions that guided the discussions and the summaries of our findings.

 

1. What has Freemasonry done in the past?

For a fraternity that is centuries old, this question is extremely significant. It asks how Freemasonry developed and what Masonic affiliation meant to Masons of an earlier time. The Freemasons of the 1700s set a very high standard. In the late 1700s, Freemasons helped build two new nations founded on Masonic principles.

Patriots chose to help create the United States; Loyalists chose to help strengthen Canada. Both groups had many Masons in their midst. For detailed information, we turned to the historians on our Task Force who led a review of our Masonic past. The key points and summaries are listed below.

In the past, Freemasonry accomplished the following:

• Provided camaraderie
• Created elite status
• Served as a stepping stone to military, arts, business and social contacts
• Attracted leaders to its membership

Guilds of Masons (early labor unions) probably originated in Scotland in the 1600s. Early Masons concentrated on the following tasks:

• Protecting workers’ interests
• Helping Masonic families
• Operating lodges
• Opening lodges to non-stonemasons
• Formally ritualizing the method of creating new members

In colonial America, Freemasonry provided leadership during the American Revolution and throughout the nation’s history. It also provided a moral philosophy relevant to the individual and to communities. In early America, Freemasonry:

• Promoted a philanthropic focus supporting fraternal kinship.
• Inspired authors to create a body of popular literature, offering satiric views, i.e. Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain.
• Stimulated thought consistent with Masonic values. Lodges became sites of Revolutionary debating, responding to contemporary thought.

We looked for historical trends that reshaped our Masonic identity. We found several pivotal events:

• (Speculative) Freemasonry evolved into and eventually from 18th century European enlightened thinking.
• In the late 1800s, Victorian values influenced Masonic priorities both in Europe and North America by placing emphasis on heightening social awareness and stressing social idealism.
• Twentieth-century Freemasonry sustained Victorian idealism and reinforced philanthropic emphasis of fraternity.
• During World War II, President Truman said that men should join the Masonic fraternity before going to war, which reinforced a rise in Masonic membership.
• Masonic tradition became locked in ritual as an end, not as a simply part of a process.
• Today Masonry is shaped by the 19th century concept of social benevolence and the 20th century emphasis on ritual as the completion of a Mason’s education about the fraternity. (Structured study rather and focus on the ritual but not the free intellectual inquiry that will rise independently in the worthy candidate.)

 One thing that tells me a company is in trouble is when they tell me how good they were in the past. Same with countries. You don’t want to forget your identity. I am glad you were great in the 14th century, but that was then and this is now. When memories exceed dreams, the end is near.

 

2. What is currently happening within Freemasonry?

Obviously, this question has no right or wrong answers because—like public opinion—it asks for personal perceptions and observations. The Task Force members agreed that there were and are tensions inherent in our organization today, including but not limited to the following perceptions:

• There is a slight movement toward wanting to educate the public about the fraternity.
• There is recognition that traditional communications tools have failed to heighten public awareness.
• The inclusion of family members at Masonic events has produced mixed results.
• Masonry is no longer identified as an elite organization.
• There are disagreements regarding priorities of financial commitments to Masonic buildings and charitable obligations versus starting new programs.
• Current Masons generally do not understand the true meaning of our fraternity.
• A reliance on historic heroes inhibits Masons from achieving contemporary significance. 

UK Freemasonry and UGLE University Scheme's Astounding Success, Challenges

UK FREEMASONRY: SUCCESS WITH UNIVERSITY SCHEME, CHALLENGES OF GROWTH  

from United Grand Lodge of England, (edited for clarity for U.S. readership)

Although still in its early years, the Universities Scheme has tremendously grown and expanded, not so much like a balloon, but rather more like an inflated rubber glove. The thought that (with renewed focus) university masonry would spread in predictable and orchestrated fashion is one that I abandoned in the first few months of the Scheme’s existence, when it became swiftly apparent that it would take on its own life and character, irrespective of what intentions we had for it. We are now seeing lodges taking up participation not only across England and in areas of South Wales but also, potentially, beyond these shores, wherever the writ of Grand Lodge runs.

The stated aim of the Universities Scheme is to establish or enhance opportunities for undergraduates and other (targeted university and college) members to join and enjoy Freemasonry. What that means in practice is creating a network of lodges, each linked to a university to whose suitable members it will offer lodge membership, including while undergraduates and including if under twenty-one. Participating lodges adapt their way of operating to ensure that they are truly undergraduate-friendly, whatever that may mean in the context of their university. As I write, there are twenty-one lodges in the Scheme, but that figure will immediately be out of date.

Although, at the outset, Provinces were approached and lodges were invited to participate, it is now many months since the scope for lodges to apply to participate was first announced and since that offer was first taken up. The Scheme has long outgrown its Steering Group’s capacity to provide one-to-one coordinator support for every lodge. That transformation, which has depended crucially on the skill and enthusiasm of key individuals, both in the lodges themselves and in provincial executives, has allowed the Group to focus its time and resources on the critical issues that are common to university lodges and to university masons.

THE CRITICAL ISSUES TO SUCCESS

One such issue is how to retain these young masons when they leave university and move on. In the Universities Scheme, retention is a subject of special significance as graduates will often move many hundreds of miles to settle into their new lives as young professionals. Unless the Craft takes care to avoid it, the chance that those young masons will lose contact with their lodge is high.

For that reason, we are creating a structure to ensure that university masons will always have a ready welcome into a lodge within easy distance of their new abode, at least while they stay in England or Wales, (albeit that ‘easy distance’ takes on a special meaning for those who choose to dwell, say on the Lizard or the Lleyn Peninsular.)

Scheme lodges have an important mentoring duty to provide detailed advice and practical support for their young members’ future masonic careers and various areas of personal development and advancement.

In most cases, and particularly for London-bound graduates, a lodge will develop a few ‘standard’ routes which are expected to become well trodden in time.

The link with London is especially important, as that is the destination for a large proportion of graduates. There, the Steering Group has identified a number of ‘receptor’ lodges whose character makes them suitable for graduates moving to the area, and in the vanguard of these are the Lodge of Honour and Generosity, No.165; Phoenix Lodge, No.173; and Tetragon Lodge, No.6302. All of these meet in Great Queen Street. For graduates moving elsewhere, Scheme lodges exist in many cities and may be able to offer them membership.

Many graduates will find that their old (secondary) school has a lodge, many of which are affiliated to the Federation of School Lodges or the Public School Lodges’ Council, while some universities have lodges for their alumni that meet in London. Graduates can also look to their future careers when identifying a suitable receptor lodge, as many ‘specialist’ lodges welcome members of particular professions. As the need grows or befitting changes that are welcomed, the development of more specialist lodges and receptor lodges will be necessary.

Meanwhile, in London, groups like the Connaught Club, informal social groups for younger masons which meets regularly and is well placed to offer advice.

The process of retaining these young men in masonry involves an element of altruism for Scheme lodges, particularly in those university towns where many students pass through rather than stay. It is a duty to the Craft in general and the long term rather than to their own immediate well-being, and includes the need to stay in touch even after a graduate has moved on. (This also may involve programming a limited number of special or home-coming events, including those corresponding to university alumni programming.)

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

If that represents the present and perhaps the immediate future, what will these arrangements look like in ten or twenty years? Will the receptor lodges grow out of all recognition? That will depend on a number of factors, the most important of which is whether that is their wish.

Were each receptor to receive a larger number of joining graduates per year than they might otherwise receive from any other source, in a few years they would be well above average size with many joiners not offered the opportunity to take office. Is that a problem? Yes and no.

Large lodges can provide much enjoyment, as the Grand Stewards’ Lodge with its four hundred members can well attest. And progressive office is not universal and receptor lodges may choose to introduce alternatives to that norm. And lodges have many equally important functions with office holding being only one, and one that does not appeal to many.

The receptor lodges may also recognize that one function that they perform is as a conduit, or perhaps bridgehead, in the graduate’s new location, providing the opportunity to meet other masons locally and to join other lodges either as informal "secondary receptors" or not.

It is possible that receptor lodges may resolve at some point that they need to change their status once more and withdraw from that particular role, either permanently or temporarily, while digesting their new cohort of members.

Or they may operate on the basis of an annual limit, but in doing so forgo the benefit of a prompt build-up of members of similar age and aspiration, with its valuable scope for attracting the like-minded. Just as there are many questions; there will be many different solutions.

The Universities Scheme has always avoided, and will continue to avoid, prescription. The Steering Group’s role is to guide and encourage, never to rule, the lodges that participate in the Scheme. Each lodge, having made its own decision to take part, determines its own course to achieving the Scheme’s objective. And with that number growing as it is, the future looks fascinating and very bright.