Masonic Bill of Rights

[cemab4y]

I believe that the overall state of Freemasonry is an important topic and all Freemasons should be aware and interested. I like the slogan "Think Globally, and act locally". Freemasonry is a "dynamic" enterprise. The organization is undergoing changes. How we manage these changes, and how we adapt ourselves, our lodges, and our Grand Lodges, will speak to the kind of men and Masons we are.

 

[cemab4y]

Here are the latest statistics, as compiled and released by the Masonic Service Association of North America:

U.S. Grand Lodges Membership


STATE MEMBERSHIP 2011 MEMBERSHIP 2010 GAIN/LOSS

ALABAMA ^ 27,576 28,684 -1,108
ALASKA 1,868 1,935 -67
ARIZONA 8,263 8,651 -388
ARKANSAS 12,005 14,429 -2,424
CALIFORNIA 57,250 57,267 -17
COLORADO 9,320 10,356 -1,036
CONNECTICUT 12,423 12,895 -472
DELAWARE 4,997 5,110 -113
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA * 4,424 4,341 83
FLORIDA 44,437 45,940 -1,503
GEORGIA 42,297 43,578 -1,281
HAWAII * 1,806 1,742 64
IDAHO 3,832 3,962 -130
ILLINOIS ^ 66,347 65,564 783
INDIANA 62,968 65,443 -2,475
IOWA 20,844 21,695 -851
KANSAS 22,004 23,074 -1,070
KENTUCKY ^ 45,275 46,362 -1,087
LOUISIANA 20,482 21,004 -522
MAINE * 21,033 20,294 739
MARYLAND 15,998 16,235 -237
MASSACHUSETTS 35,333 35,944 -611
MICHIGAN 36,172 37,709 -1,537
MINNESOTA 14,084 14,721 -637
MISSISSIPPI 18,689 19,341 -652
MISSOURI 50,415 50,500 -85
MONTANA 5,773 5,990 -217
NEBRASKA 12,271 12,716 -445
NEVADA 4,168 4,225 -57
NEW HAMPSHIRE 6,681 6,898 -217
NEW JERSEY 23,209 24,775 -1,566
NEW MEXICO * ^ 5,590 5,553 37
NEW YORK 44,776 45,801 -1,025
NORTH CAROLINA 43,644 45,096 -1,452
NORTH DAKOTA 2,927 3,055 -128
OHIO 101,929 106,870 -4,941
OKLAHOMA 24,068 25,739 -1,671
OREGON 9,203 9,541 -338
PENNSYLVANIA 111,661 113,279 -1,618
RHODE ISLAND ^ 4,161 4,213 -52
SOUTH CAROLINA 38,853 39,927 -1,074
SOUTH DAKOTA 5,902 6,094 -192
TENNESSEE 43,015 44,691 -1,676
TEXAS 88,896 91,632 -2,736
UTAH 2,034 2,035 -1
VERMONT 6,299 6,444 -145
VIRGINIA 38,008 38,498 -490
WASHINGTON ^ 16,110 15,369 741
WEST VIRGINIA 21,242 21,643 -401
WISCONSIN 12,165 12,694 -529
WYOMING 3,776 3,899 -123
Total 1,336,503 1,373,453 -36,950



* Increase over 2010 ^ Adjustment from Previous Year

 

[cemab4y]

Please do not "shoot the messenger". This time around only DC, Hawaii, Maine and New Mexico showed an increase. Interestingly, California lost only 17 members! Maybe things are turning around in the Golden State.

I apologize to anyone who believes that I think Masonry is "dying". It is not. Masonry is going through a "contraction". I would like to see a statistical analysis, and see which states have the biggest declines (per capita), and which are managing the contraction with a smaller decline. Grand Lodges need to share information, with one another, about what works!

 

[Winter]

Herein lies the problem. You have repeatedly placed emphasis on the numbers. Not the quality of Freemasonry being engaged in.

 

[cemab4y]

Herein lies the problem. You have repeatedly placed emphasis on the numbers. Not the quality of Freemasonry being engaged in.

I disagree. The thrust of this discussion, is about the direction that Masonry is taking. Although the primary focus is on the contraction of membership, I want to "look past" the raw data, and focus on the trends. What economists call the "out-years". I think that we can manage the loss of the WW2 generation, and manage the down-sizing. We will see fewer lodges, and more consolidations. This is not necessarily a bad thing, the remaining lodges will grow in size. This growth in the remaining lodges, can result in a membership base better suited to handle the situation.

The loss of the WW2 generation, will result in a lower overall demographic. With the passing of men who were born before television, and who are internet-phobic, we will see a membership base, more amenable to an embrace of technology. We will see more modernity, in all aspects of Freemasonry. A better use of technology, and a less sclerotic, calcified membership base.

I have chosen not to focus on the "quality" of the new membership base. Although I have nothing against quality, it is a subjective determination, and does not lend itself to statistical analysis.

 

[Winter]

Again, you, as a statistician, are concerned with the numbers. I contend that the numbers are irrelevant and will continually fluctuate over time dependent on external events such as wars and pogroms like the Morgan Affair to name just two. If our focus is instead the cultivation and preservation of a more meaningful and purposeful Masonry regardless of numbers then we have succeeded. Masonry was never meant to appeal to a large membership base. You contend that with a contraction the surviving Lodges will grow larger. Again, unnecessary and undesirable. A Lodge should be a small personal group. If you cannot name every brother in your Lodge and know every single one personally, you are doing it wrong. There is nothing wrong with having half a dozen Lodges in a jurisdiction if each one is a small personal fellowship.

And as for your continued call for more technology in Freemasonry I disagree. I see nothing wrong with having a web page or an email address. But viewing modern technology as if it is the answer to all our problems is wrong. We don't need it. All the television ads and recruiting blitz tell everyone is that we are hurting for members and we want to attract new ones. Freemasonry does just as well with a handful of dedicated Brothers with a room to work in and some candles. Again, this comes down to the quality of the experience, not the numbers involved or how many computers are added to the mix.

You say that quality is a subjective determination. I disagree and posit that determining whether a Lodge experience is a quality one is absolutely measurable using quantifiable feedback. Businesses and learning institutions do this all the time to ensure that they are delivering a quality end product. You may be a statistician but I am an anthropologist.

 

[cemab4y]

If you have two lodges in one city, and one has 100 members, and one has 50 members, and the smaller lodge is no longer sustainable, then the small lodge will close and consolidate with the bigger lodge. The result will be one lodge with 150 members. This is the result of addition. 100 + 50 = 150. Why is this unnecessary and undesirable? The closing of the small lodge is necessary, because it no longer has a membership base, adequate to operate. The resultant larger lodge with 150 members is an excellent result. The larger lodge is sustainable, it has a membership base adequate to operate, and financial resources adequate to ensure operation. This is what corporate economists call "right-sizing". It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

Why should lodges be small? And how small is small? 200? 75? Should lodges have a "cap" on how many men can join? (I have heard of such lodges). My lodge (KY) has about 200 members. I reside in Virginia, and work in Afghanistan. I cannot name more than about 3-4 men who are in my lodge. Am I doing something wrong?

How many lodges should there be in a jurisdiction? You say half a dozen. How did you arrive at this number? I have nothing against small lodges (less than 100 members). But, there are advantages to larger lodges. It called "economy of scale". Larger lodges have a more robust financial structure (on average), and they are thus more sustainable.

We live in a technological age. (I am a telecommunications engineer, and computer systems specialist). I do not necessarily believe that technology is the answer to all of our problems. I do believe that Masonry should embrace new technologies, and make more use of them in our Craft. Fredericksburg lodge #4 (VA) has an electronic newsletter. This is more cost-effective and speedy than having a print newsletter. Members are better served, and at a lower cost. The internet is tailor-made for Freemasonry, because of its universality.

We will see more use of video in Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge of Oklahoma has a series of videos, which are used to explain the meanings and symbolism of the Craft degrees. I foresee more use of such technology in Freemasonry and in the appendant bodies, to assist Masons in improving their knowledge of the Craft. We are instructed to "improve ourselves in Masonry", and which working tools we use, whether classroom lectures, instructional videos, or books, is really left up to us.

I can see a time, where Grand Masters can record a monthly message for all of the Masons in the state, on video. Masons will be able to download the video message at home. Lodges can have wide-screen TVs and at masonic meetings, the Grand master's message can be played. Kentucky already has a monthly Masonic newspaper delivered by internet, streaming video is not far behind.

What Grand Lodges, Lodges, and individual Masons need to do, is to prepare for the inevitable changes which are coming. Some will be good, some will not be good. The decline in the membership base, is irrefutable. No serious person can look at the statistics and see growth. We can and must "manage" the decline, and seek to turn in to an advantage. We will see a decline in the number of lodges, but the resultant lodges will have an increased membership base. The loss of members who are "techno-phobic", and fight any use of technology will be fantastic. The entry of a new leadership base, which has been using computers and telecommunications all their lives, will result in more use of modern technology. The downward shift in the demographic base, will bring more modernization into all facets of Freemasonry.

I believe this is a great time for Freemasonry. A smaller, leaner membership base, and more sustainable lodges, will prove to be a boon to Masonry. Younger, more techno-savvy members and leaders will enable us to bring more technology into Freemasonry. All that is left for us to do is to pick up our working tools, and work together to move Freemasonry into the 21st century.

 

[Zack]

Seems like a departure from the doom and gloom scenario you have espoused in the past. The last paragraph in particular. Congratulations!

 

[cemab4y]

I do not have time for "gloom and doom". I see reality and tell it like it is. We experienced an artificial "bump" in the post WW2 generation. That time is over. There is a new Masonry coming at us. A new, more technologically advanced Masonry. A Masonry based on younger, more vital members, as the "buzzard's row" crowd will take the final journey. Maybe we will stop hearing "We never did it that way before", and start hearing "Let's be the first in our lodge to do this!"

 

[Winter]

Charles, it is interesting that you say the Lodge with 50 members is too small and unsustainable. Fifty members is the cap that is set on my Lodge precisely in order to make sure we remain small. And we are nowhere near that number. And we are thriving, I assure you. Our TO/EU model WORKS. It is being proven all over the country as more Lodges discover this. A smaller personal Lodge as opposed to a larger impersonal Lodge is the experience the young men of today are seeking out precisely because it is different than the unfulfilling techno-overload in the rest of there lives.

You say that you can only name 3-4 members of your Lodge? I feel kind of sad for you. That is no way to go through Masonry. This is precisely the reason that small personal Lodges should be the model for Freemasonry instead of your "economy of scale" model that would destroy us. You are a member of a club called Freemasons instead of a Brother in the Fraternal Order of Masons. I do not say this as an insult. But your whole point of view is designed to drive Freemasonry towards a club or civic organization model that has absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry. I will say it again in case you you missed it, if you do not know every member of your Lodge like your best your friend, you (and/or your Lodge) are doing it wrong.

 

[goomba]

I would love to be a member of a small tight brotherhood! I am one of those new young Masons everyone talks about in theory.

 

[cemab4y]

Charles, it is interesting that you say the Lodge with 50 members is too small and unsustainable.

==I was speaking hypothetically. If a lodge reaches a membership number, and a financial situation that renders the lodge unsustainable, then the lodge must close. (Freemasonry is not the federal government, and we cannot borrow 40c on every dollar we spend. Our books must balance). Two lodges that I have belonged to in the past, had to close and consolidate. Virginia and New York are two of the states which are experiencing membership losses. (see the charts). The losses are not distributed evenly, and some lodges are losing membership faster than other lodges. When the numbers drop, lodges close.

Fifty members is the cap that is set on my Lodge precisely in order to make sure we remain small. And we are nowhere near that number. And we are thriving, I assure you. Our TO/EU model WORKS. It is being proven all over the country as more Lodges discover this. A smaller personal Lodge as opposed to a larger impersonal Lodge is the experience the young men of today are seeking out precisely because it is different than the unfulfilling techno-overload in the rest of there lives.

==I have absolutely nothing against small lodges. If the lodge is financially sound, then great. In the 19th century, nearly all lodges were in rural areas, and the membership base was small. Large mega-lodges (like large mega-churches) are a phenomenon of urbanization and the 20th century. If the 21st century can see a migration back to smaller, intimate lodges, I think that is fabulous.


You say that you can only name 3-4 members of your Lodge? I feel kind of sad for you. That is no way to go through Masonry.

==I do not need your pity. I have an unusual occupation. I have spent over 14 years of my career in foreign countries. I have spent the last 9 years in Iraq and Afghanistan on military projects. (see www.cemab4y.blogspot.com ) Our nation is at war. Computers run the Army, and I run the computers. Our ancient, operative brethren travelled in foreign countries to work and receive their wages. I am part of that tradition, and I am just as much a Mason as anyone else. I am unable to participate in Masonry in these countries, because no Grand Lodge (other than Prince Hall and Canadian) will charter a military traveling lodge in south-west Asia. This has been one of the biggest disappointments to me in my entire Masonic career.


This is precisely the reason that small personal Lodges should be the model for Freemasonry instead of your "economy of scale" model that would destroy us.

==I say again, I have no problem at all with small lodges. My mother lodge has less than 200 members, and is declining. They are getting smaller every year. Unless my lodge can turn the decline around, and reach a membership base that is adequate to ensure sustainability, the lodge will be forced to close.
The trend in the recent past, is that membership is declining (I know some people dispute this claim). The number of lodges is also declining. As the number of lodges declines, the membership base of the surviving lodges will increase (at least in the short term). This is somewhat "Darwinian", because only the "fittest" lodges will survive the shake-out. I do not believe that financially healthy lodges with an active membership base will destroy us. Quite the contrary, lodges of this type will ensure our survival.


You are a member of a club called Freemasons instead of a Brother in the Fraternal Order of Masons. I do not say this as an insult. But your whole point of view is designed to drive Freemasonry towards a club or civic organization model that has absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry. I will say it again in case you you missed it, if you do not know every member of your Lodge like your best your friend, you (and/or your Lodge) are doing it wrong.

==I have never and will never "drive" Freemasonry into such a model. I have no desire to alter our ancient landmarks, which have served us well. On the contrary, I have pressed for many years, that Freemasonry revive some of our cherished traditions. (Reviving the Masonic employment bureaus, offering more assistance to Masonic widows, expanding masonic education, reviving and enhancing Masonic youth groups, etc) Every time that I suggest that Freemasonry move towards the kind of fraternity that we were in the past, I get pilloried.

My career requires that I be 7000 miles away from my mother lodge. I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a combat zone, where terrorist are trying to kill me. I have lost three co-workers in the past 9 years. Please tell me, and explain it like I am a two-year old: How am I to get to know the members of my lodge, like my best friend?

 

[goomba]

I had an observation tonight while visiting a lodge. I went to a small lodge tonight for an EA degree. There were I think 15 MM's present and obviously the 1 then candidate (now EA). Here is the age breakdown:
60+: 5
40-50: 2
21-39: 8 (well really 9 when you add the EA)

My grandfather-in-law told me when I joined Masonry it was full of old men and to an extent it is. So for this particular lodge on this particular night the Masonic youth outnumbered the seniors. It was very pleasing to see some of us hung out for 1.5 hours after closing. Thought you all would find this interesting.

*I know that one lodge on one night is not a predictor for the future. But is was cool us being in the majority.

 

[cemab4y]

Reading you loud and clear. Some years ago, I volunteered to be a DeMolay advisor. If you want to get involved with the younger side of Freemasonry, that is one way to do it!

 

[goomba]

I don't live close enough to a DeMolay chapter to be able to participate. Wish I did.