Begging Letters
What do we think?
Today in one of my Lodges, the topic of Begging Letters came up.
If you don’t know what on earth I’m writing about, specifically Begging Letters are letters sent from a Mason, or more often a Masonic group of some kind, to a Lodge, asking for a donation.
In my Jurisdiction, in order for a letter like this to be sent, and read in Lodge, it requires the approval of the Grand Master.
Most often, in my experience, Lodges here receive them from the three Masonic youth groups active in Washington, always, of course, with the approval of our Grand Master.
I’ve thought about these letters for a lot of years. After all of that thinking, I don’t believe that I’ve actually decided how we should best handle these things as a Craft. I do though have some random thoughts, and as always, questions.
The first thing that comes to mind is how we reference these letters in our Washington Masonic Code. “Begging Letters” Well, that’s an awfully negative term in my view, and not in keeping, I think, with the letters generally received. In my experience these letters seek donations, they don’t ‘beg’ for donations. I have to wonder if whomever wrote this code provision way back in the distant past wasn’t an ornery old miser, choosing the words carefully so as to discourage the sending of such letters, and to help discourage positive response.
The second thing that comes to mind is a question of fairness. My Lodge is always eager to support our Youth Groups financially when asked. We are also often eager to support small scale charitable endeavors in our little City. It doesn’t seem fair that our Masonic Youth Groups have to get permission from the Grand Lodge to send our Lodges a request for donations, but non-Masonic charitable groups can send us letters anytime without approval of anyone.
The third thing that comes to mind is that a Lodge’s money is the Lodge’s money. Is not the requirement that Masonic organizations like our Youth Groups receive permission before sending us a letter asking for a donation a restraint on the Lodge’s ability to spend its own money as it sees fit? I believe that there are certainly instances when a Grand Lodge should prevent a Lodge from spending money, but I can’t believe that things such as these should be an instance of that.
On the other hand, if this requirement didn’t exist, I could see a Lodge being bombarded by requests for charity from Masons unknown to the Lodge. With no way to follow-up and ensure that the dollars were properly spent.
For large disasters I could see a situation in which great numbers of Lodges were seeking to raise money for relief, a situation likely handled much more effectively through the current Masonic Service Association process, as has been done in the United States for over 100 years.
I have no recommendations, only questions.
So I am really curious about what everyone else thinks.
Does your Grand Lodge call these things ‘Begging Letters?’
Do they require approval from the Grand Lodge if they are going to be sent to Lodges?
Is it fair that a Masonic organization, say a Youth Group, must get permission before sending a Lodge a donation letter, but of course no such restrictions can or do exist for non-Masonic charitable endeavors?
Should a Grand Lodge, by requiring approval of these donation requests, exercise prior restraint on a Lodge spending its money in this way?
Does the approval requirement serve as an important check against inappropriate or fraudulent requests?
Is it important that Masonic fiscal donations following major disasters continue to flow through the MSA?
How does your Grand Lodge handle these things?
How would you handle it, if you had a magic wand that allowed you to bring any change desired to your Jurisdiction’s Masonic Code?
Let’s chat about it…
I always look to the language at the time of
writing. Websters 1828 is a great dictionary because it allows us to see into the past to understand the context at the time.
We call them “begging certificates”
If you think about text the north east charge, and consider the meaning of the term it seems really apparent that the intention of these begging certificates is to alert us to a pour in distress brother who from unforeseen and inevitable calamity is reduced to the lowest steps of poverty and distress, That it is a call for us to remember the poor penniless moment, we were admitted, to then practice that virtue we profess to admire.
We have our Grand charity, Which emails or members of the Grand Lodge on a semi regular basis when there is something that they’re specifically raising funds for. We also have the Grand Masters disaster relief fund as well.
There are also some Masonic charities like the Masonic youth welfare fund, But with the significant decline a membership they rebranded move away from the Masonic references and Call themselves something else. So these charities don’t get an opportunity to reach out to lodges with unless they have an existing relationship.
We need to remember that just because it’s Freemasonry doesn’t mean it’s a business or that the typical business practices we see our day-to-day world still don’t apply.
Effectively these charities are marketing to the members of lodges of that Grand Lodge.
Just like any partnership and marketing campaign they need to get permission for the Grand Lodge to either send the communication out to all their lodges on their behalf or handover a marketing list. I’m sure we want Grand Lodge to do the emails.
This is not to say that they should be classified as begging letters or whatever the local terminology is — rather Grand Lodge should be considering whether they’re marketing communications they actually want to send out to their members or not.
Otherwise, they’re more than welcome to go and, like any other business, through their own means identify the key contacts at Lodge’s and then market to them.
Yes, that will mean they will not have consent to contact, and thus would be unmasonic let alone a possible breach of law around spam & privacy.
It seems to me that Your Grand Lodge has been using begging certificates or letters, incorrectly.
If these charities want to reach out to Lodge’s and then contact the Grand Lodge for assistance, they can deny the request out of good business judgment, so as not to spam their members and shouldn’t be putting it under begging letters.
If a Grand Lodge wants to assist by emailing lodges on their behalf, that’s their way of contributing to charity.
But they should not be begging letters and they should be reserved specifically for poor distress brother who fairly claim our assistance
North East Charge
“…..from unforeseen and inevitable calamity, are reduce to the lowest ebb of poverty and distress. These claim not only our sympathy, but also our assistance….”
“.. are you willing to contribute to the relief of poor and distressed Brethren?”
“.. that should you, in the daily walks of life, meet with a poor and distressed Brother who may fairly claim your assistance, you will remember that peculiar moment when, poor and penniless, you were admitted into Freemasonry..”
Websters 1828
BEG'GING, participle present tense Asking alms; supplicating; assuming without proof.
BEG'GING, noun The act of soliciting alms; the practice of asking alms; as, he lives by begging
'ALMS noun, 'amz. [Eng. almesse; Latin eleemosyna; Gr. to pity.]
Any thing given gratuitously to relieve the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity.
This is an issue that has bugged me for years. As you point out, it's the lodges money, and they should be able to decide where they spend it.
But at what point is it considered a begging letter? We had recently donated to a JROTC group because one of our brothers stood up in lodge and made his case for it. I've invited an organizer of a fund raiser to put wreaths on the gravestones at a local state Veterans cemetery to pitch his needs. What is the difference between a personal request in lodge versus a letter?
I would assume that the difference is whether it is a letter sent to all lodges versus individual asks, but the code needs to be clearer of its intent with this subject. It's confusing.