Development of a New Lodge: A Template Based on What We Have Learned

THe MISSION, GOALS AND ORGANIZATION OF Lodge #--- OF THE --- gRAND lODGE OF fREE anD ACCEPTED MASONS

Lodge #--- aspires to emulate the best practices and principles as follows: Traditional American Freemasonry (including much expressed by RW John Mauk Hilliard); Anglo-Latin or “European Concept” practices (as outlined by RW Kent Anderson, UGLA); and something of the initiatic focus of Traditional Observance (promoted by the Masonic Restoration Foundation);  organizing along the principles of Affinity (including those espoused by RW Oliver Lodge UGLE and RW William A. Hill);  reintroduction of Anglo-Saxon traditional Masonry in a focus on wide ranging intellectual inquiry (as urged by WB Julian Rees PJGD, UGLE);  avoidance of the petty and perfunctory including officialdom, kakistocracy, obsession with promotion, rank and lengthy procedure and time wasting (as shared by RW Dwight Smith and RW George Braatz and immediate involvement in areas of lodge function beyond simply occupying “chairs”, (also shared by Smith and Braatz).  

The core principles for us INCLUDE:

Distinct and sole focus on Initiatic function of Lodge meetings;  Programs of Regular Indoctrination into the intellectual, spiritual teaching and social applications of the Fraternity and the Lodge;  Bringing the Lodge into intimate fellowship and personal communication;  Charity first among the Brethren and also in the immediate community;  Mutual Support in Advancement of Brothers;   Refined and elevated Environment in behavior and presentation in all aspects of Lodge functions;   Limiting the number of Lodge meetings held to the absolute minimal needed for degrees and votes to maintain the initiatic focus;   Selectivity, Exclusivity and Continuity with a thorough, independent program for identifying new members;  Compatibility among membership, formulating and continuing a distinct character and Affinities of the Lodge:  a relationship with a formal or informal society, club or other organization for mundane affairs such as charitable endeavors, social events, membership development, debate and other opportunities ;   Warm relations with and support of the governance of the Grand Lodge ;  Relationships with other Lodges; Relationships with spiritual organizations and other civic and social organizations in keeping with the interests and characteristics of the Lodge;  Required commitment to the Lodge and its supporting structures that assures at least minimal level of involvement and support of the Lodge and its members (and the rancourless disassociation of members who cannot meet this requirement).

Mission and Goals of the Lodge:

·         To Benefit our constituency in the Lodge, the institution and the community in that order. 

·         The Lodge would be as a group of brothers, dedicated to mutual support, well being and development of each Brother, emphasizing the values of the Lodge and Freemasonry through our actions toward each other in ways tangible as well as intangible.

·         Every Brother would know that the most Masonic duty of Charity would be engaged in first and unfailingly within our Lodge membership.

·         Every Mason in the Lodge would be able to point to the manifest benefit of being in the Lodge and why he attends. No brother would need to use platitudes and idealization to explain his reasons for membership in the Lodge.  

·         The continuation and establishment of traditions and customs that reinforce the Masonic spirit and ethos within our lodge in service to our members, the institution and the community.

Organization and Operation of the Lodge:

·         Our Lodge meetings will have a clear agenda of dealing with vetting candidates, organizing and carrying out degree work and engaging in education befitting those of substantial intellectual development and educational attainment. 

·         Engage in the "European Concept" model of education where new candidates would share some research or information about Masonry rather than focusing on memorization from rote, and the pursuit of members that show evidence of taking the exhortations to learning in the liberal arts and sciences seriously.

·         Be influenced by Traditional Observance scheduling and focus of formal meetings, to wit, Lodges being held only for review of candidates and giving degrees, work being done in ancient manner to the degree allowed by the jurisdiction. (An atmosphere of solemnity including use of a contemplation room; brevity and austerity rather than “dramatic flair”, affectations and camp in ritual performance). Formulation of a Lodge specific Credo as a touchstone to communicate and retain the character desired.

·        Hold informal round table business meetings, with clear agendas either on some Lodge meeting nights (or on weekends or Friday when possible).

·         Short term and long term goals, tasks, time-lines and calendar, point people and committees.

·         Nights for guests and for inter - lodge visitation (usually when degrees are held).  The opportunity will be taken to offer our assistance and request assistance from other Lodges in the Work.  Otherwise we would encourage privacy and exclusivity to build the bonds and maintain the distinct character within the Lodge.

Organization and Operation of the Club:

·         The club would work independently in support of our Masonic work, having the similar duties reflective of the goals of our Lodge.

·         The social and intellectual development, charity (in and out of the Lodge) and our development of the club's financial wherewithal would occur through its calendar of events and programs.

·         The Club will permit social and intellectual discussion and member participation broader than the Lodge. There will not be compulsory membership as to respect the independence of the Lodge.

·         While independently assessed and managed fees will be assessed from the Lodge to cover the basic work of Charity, Agape, and Membership Development (including investigation),  other fundraising will be pursued by the Club independently to support Club and Lodge activities.

Communication:

·         We would support both the Lodge and club with an integrated (social networking) internet forum, online journal and email and text message group. 

·         We would all have some biographical information to the degree that none of us would be strangers. We would all know the names and something about our fellows in the Lodge- what they are doing, what they are thinking and what their situation is.

Recruitment:

·         The Club will be at the service of the Lodge and do thorough outreach to yield a steady stream of good, solid and well-vetted men coming in. The Club’s services will enable the Lodge to avoid soliciting membership (per Masonic regulations) and other limitations and problems often experienced in the selection process, allowing the Lodge itself to maintain an unmarred character and attention to its initiatic focus.

·         According to the principles of traditional Lodges, we will employ selectivity and the strictest attention to compatibility with membership.  The Club will be mindful of this Lodge’s tradition, interests, mission, credo and themes; relationships will be considered along with the careful and independent assessment of potential candidates.

·         The Lodge will welcome candidates with the wherewithal to assist in ensuring that our Lodge is viable.

·         The Lodge will welcome individuals with a genuine interest in esoteric and spiritual meaning of the Craft and capacity to understand these aspects of the Craft. 

·         A graduated dues system similar to clubs (taking into account age, proximity and retirement, university enrollment, clergy, commissioned officers and educators.)

·         Consideration of Masons with ties to healthy Lodges while generally avoiding cross membership to the degree that the Lodge suffers from significantly split attentions.

·         Men who are likely to be in full amity and fellowship with the character of membership we have.

Culture and Programs:

·         Traditional Observance Rituals (candles, contemplation room) focused on the ancient ritual and brevity.

·          Preferably two annual table Lodges.  Festive board (mixer) open for Masons and guests.

·         Guest degree teams (such as Colonial Degree, “Kilties” and the Badge and Square); opportunities to travel to participate in degrees in exceptional environments such as the outdoors.

·         When available, to take part in Grand Master Classes, degrees at other lodges and to invite guests to assist in our work so that the initiation is not just into our lodge but into Freemasonry as a whole, and a chance for the candidate to be welcomed into a wide Freemasonic circle.

·          Appropriateness of dress in Lodge and appropriate Club events (tuxedos or business attire / jackets); Fine regalia including personal aprons, ribbon jewels for Table Lodges and Festive board occasions.

·         Lodge meetings and Agape scheduled and held according to European Concept. 

·         Twinning programs with lodges that nationally and internationally that have been successful and that would be easy to visit, for instance:  Twinning program University Scheme Lodge in Britain; Twinning program with the nearest and best suited University Scheme Lodge; Twinning program with Swedish Rite Lodge in Scandinavia or Germany to encourage familiarity with those recognized but somewhat distinct jurisdictions; Twinning with Lodges of similar character in cities where Brothers show a pattern of relocating in order to ensure Brothers stay involved with the Craft.  

·         Development of a credo, motto, seal and other distinctive statements and indicators as a appropriate to the new lodge.

fin

Hello there! Tell me about yourself... Seeking Brotherhood?

Good to see the young men at Emerson involving themselves (Br Tyler Cameron Sanborn) and also good to see the efforts by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts (particularly the work of Br Robert Huke, Communications and Development Director.)  

Huke and other Brethren in the Bay State have gotten out into the student and professional community, and very appropriately yet energetically presented the benefits of membership to promising and accomplished men interested in brotherhood, connecting them with lodges of like fellows in lodges that share things in common in terms of background, interests and disposition.

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!