The mass market expansion of Masonry left us with lodge buildings that eat up too much of our time and resources. Our niche will need to figure out how we continue our craft without out these grand, yet expensive, edifices. Afterall, it is a hard sell to new brother that, after first recieving his lambskin apron, we then hand him a bucket to bail water from a sinking ship.
“Our niche will need to figure out how we continue our craft without out these grand, yet expensive, edifices.”
This has been a topic that’s been covered a lot on Emeth. And it’s a topic that MW Cameron and I have worked with a lot, being members of our Building Association for the large Lodge building we’re in. Is it an albatross, or an asset? Cool thing is our newer members are seeing it as a potential asset, and are making solid efforts to take advantage of that. But many of our old Lodge buildings have degraded to the point to where it would take a significant amount of capital to restore them to where they could be a potential asset. Oftentimes it’s not feasible. Or as you note, the building’s so damn big it’s a challenge to maintain and manage.
Back in September, I visited two Spokane Lodges in their “new” building in downtown Spokane, WA. The old one was magnificent, but huge. So they downsized (oops! Right-sized) and moved into a building on the other side of downtown. But they took steps to make that Lodge room a LODGE room. You step inside? It’s Freemasonry, not a large, sterile conference room with a few chairs set up and a wood-paneled East wall with a basic G. They made the effort, and you can actually FEEL it.
Yes, I know, at it’s root, you can hold a Lodge meeting of Brothers in a garage, or as they ‘joke’ here, a barbershop. But if you want a cool meeting place? You can do it, and not need that giant Lodge building that costs a fortune to maintain.
We are undoubtedly very lucky because those Masons who built our building did so in such a way as to ensure that there would always be significant commercial rents to pay for it. And that has worked well for over 100 years.
But, the building is much more massive than we actually need, making our Lodge room a vast empty space most of the time. We may need to consider doing what was done in Spokane, even if not for fiscal reasons.
I don't know, for certain, what the ultimate solution is, but I think it probably looks something like this:
Those buildings that are in themselves significant sources of income, able to pay for themselves, should and will likely remain in our ownership.
Those Lodges that set aside enough investments, whereby the investments throw off enough to pay for the building will likely remain.
Those buildings that are considered by the broader Craft to be so significant that they need to remain within the Craft, but that can't be paid for by their ownership should be financed by the broader Craft. As is done with the George Washington Masonic Memorial. This is how massive, and massively important buildings can be saved.
The rest, yep, if an income to support them can't be found, they need to go.
Here’s another take on how come our Lodge rooms are as large as they are:
“But, the building is much more massive than we actually need, making our Lodge room a vast empty space most of the time.” Many of us look at the peak period of membership, which is in the late 1950’s. For example, our Centralia Lodge reached just over 400 members in 1959. However, the Lodge did not have nearly that many members when the building was built. In 1916, it had only 145 members. However, in 1919 it bumped up to 180, then in 1920, it had 205 members. The sharp increase might have prompted Bro. Uhlmann to have a larger room built in anticipation of a continuation of the membership boom, which was understandable, and although there was a drop due to the depression and WWII, he wound up being correct – for a period of time, as noted in these posts. I invite other possible reasons and perspectives.
As for ours and some other Lodge buildings in our state (examples include Bremerton and Wenatchee,) there are provisions to use other rooms to hold Lodge. In the examples I listed, they have two Lodge rooms – a large (in Bremerton’s case, huge,) and a small Lodge room. Olympia has their large room and the replica Lodge room. In our case, we only have the one purpose-built Lodge room, but we have two other rooms that could be used as Lodge rooms, or in one case, even converted (one of my crazy ideas.) Then use the large room for special events, such as Grand Officer receptions, memorials/funerals, and other events that draw a large crowd. I’ll be honest, our Lodge room has been packed more than once this year, just not all the time.
And to be clear, the new Brothers WANT to try these ideas for our building as an asset, and are volunteering to put in the effort. They see the building as a springboard to make our Lodge more financially secure to purchase more items and technology to then make the Lodge itself thrive more in today’s society, but with the principles unique to Freemasonry.
I do think that the problem of a 'too large to properly communicate' Lodge room can be overcome. I'm very pleased with the experiment of doing all the ritualistic work in the Lodge room, but taking care of all the business in the little social hall next to it. That allows everyone to hear and be heard. Something that might not be possible otherwise.
I also think your idea of converting a smaller space within a Temple into a second, smaller Lodge room is superb, and as you mention, our Jurisdiction has examples of this. Those were, I think however, purpose built in that way when the Temple's were constructed. The only stumbling block that I see with conversion is when those smaller spaces are being utilized by other groups for other things.
One thing we do know from our past history is that Lodges used to meet at tables. I don't mean at specialized 'table Lodges.' Rather we know that their regular meetings were held at tables. That too could be a way of creating intimate and effective space within a room otherwise far too large.
“The only stumbling block that I see with conversion is when those smaller spaces are being utilized by other groups for other things.”
Correct! But when that smaller room is not being used for constructive purposes, it brings to mind the old term, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” The room becomes a dumping ground for surplus crap that those other groups can’t bear to discard. And while efforts can and have been made to clean up those rooms, the room becomes a “crapless vacuum,” to invent a term. Without diligence, the room will eventually revert to being once again filled with clutter.
If practical, one way to prevent that clutter from returning is to take that room, clean it up and paint it, and install Masonic Lodge furniture in it. If your Lodge has an extra set of podiums, deacon rods and stands, and other items that would otherwise head to the dump as surplus, it’s a good opportunity to take those items, restore/update them, and put them in a place that will make a long-term purpose for the room, which will implicitly discourage people from using it as a storage room. But that room has to be used from time to time for a Lodge meeting. It might not even have to be a Stated Communication or a degree. It could be a practice or training. And the cool thing is you can make the room into a Lodge room that might have another type of theme. For example, I know of a Lodge that has surplus neon ‘G’s. Yeah, I know, those are common in the newer bland Lodge rooms, but now with the LED technology, you can take that Neon ‘G’ and enhance it with LED off-lighting and perhaps (brainstorming here) an LED level in the West and an LED plumb in the South. Lots of options here, kind of like a blank canvas, or, if the Lodge room has a weird shape, a unique canvas where you can create a unique Lodge room, capable of unique Lodge experiences!
Another excellent article. With my lodge’s annual elections just a few weeks away, the timing couldn’t be better. Masonry cannot—and should not—try to be everything to everyone. Every time we dilute our expectations, we dilute our purpose.
We say today’s candidates “don’t have time” to learn long-form proficiency, so we create a short form. Then we allow that short form to be butchered, reassuring ourselves that “understanding the meaning” is good enough. We do the same with our openings and closings, our degree work, even our funerals. That slow erosion of standards touches every corner of the Craft.
When I joined in 2009, Colorado had around 14,000 members. Today we’re under 4500. Meanwhile, I visited a lodge in Dublin, Ireland last year. With a similar population to Colorado, Ireland has 44,000 members. Ten times our number.
It is a difficult task to guard the West Gate while improving our numbers. Yet the strength of the Craft has never depended on how many enter, but on the character of those admitted. Compromising the West Gate just to pad a roster is how we arrived at this crossroads. Integrity must come first—growth will follow.
So the question isn’t why membership is declining. The question is whether we’re willing to reclaim the standards that once built strong Masons, strong lodges, and strong communities. This election season is our chance to choose leadership that protects the integrity of the work, honors our traditions, and isn’t afraid to expect more—from candidates, from officers, and from ourselves.
We’re all worried that our membership is going to collapse to zero by some year in the not-to-distant future and that we should panic to avoid that fate, but we do indeed have that niche, and there are plenty of men out there who are seeking that niche. Two of my three Lodges are gaining members who are seeking that niche and are very serious about it, and the third one received an inquirer who had many questions, almost all about that niche we’re talking about here.
It's true we’re never going to see those 1959 numbers again, and I think more and more of us are starting to realize that’s an aberration in the history of our craft. Many of our Lodges are focusing more on the 19th Century aspect of our craft, which is helping matters. To be fair, I think the decline will continue for a while – there are a LOT of members on our rolls that are over 80 years old. But, I think that will level out and even increase, perhaps to a level that we’re seeing today. And it will be a stronger membership overall compared to the mid-20th Century where members were members of a slew of other organizations. BUT, as you say, the Lodges need to get on track now, not later.
>>>We’re all worried that our membership is going to collapse to zero by some year in >>>the not-to-distant future
Yeah, it won't collapse to zero. Lodges that are not adding value to their Mason's lives will collapse to zero. Other Lodges that are adding value will thrive. Of course there are more of the former than the latter.
>>>Two of my three Lodges are gaining members who are seeking that niche and are >>>very serious about it
Yes, this is the trend I see as well.
>>>I think the decline will continue for a while – there are a LOT of members on our rolls >>>that are over 80 years old.
Undoubtedly.
>>>Lodges need to get on track now, not later.
Agreed. Now is the time. We've chased 1957 for far too long.
Thank you. I'm glad that this was valuable to you.
>>>We say today’s candidates “don’t have time” to learn long-form proficiency, so we create a >>>short form.
This was done here in Washington, sometime before I was a Mason, and in my opinion it was a disaster. It still remains an option for Lodges here, but I believe that almost all of them have moved back to the traditional way of proving Proficiency.
When we come up with new things that are going to somehow 'save Masonry' and those things are shown to not work, we need to get rid of them. But, alas, that seems pretty much impossible.
Certainly here there have been efforts to drive a stake through the heart of the 'Alternate Proficiency' but to no avail.
>>>So the question isn’t why membership is declining. The question is whether we’re willing >>>to reclaim the standards that once built strong Masons, strong lodges, and strong >>>communities.
Exactly.
>>>This election season is our chance to choose leadership that protects the integrity of the >>>work, honors our traditions, and isn’t afraid to expect more
This is spot on. We must vote for the good of Masonry, not for the fellow who's turn it is.
Yes, one of the more famous sets of gloves they made a short while ago was a pair of motorcycle gloves for Bro. Shaquille O’Neal. There was a Chronicle article about it – I’ll have to dig for it, as the article showed the template for Shaq’s glove vs. the average glove.
I still have a pair of basic Churchills at home in my back yard. They’re totally trashed, but they’re older than many of our Brothers, as I had them when I was in my mid teens. They took an incredible amount of abuse. It’s kind of like the Kulien boots that are made – holy smokes! Only a block away from the Churchill factory! Same idea. You pay a lot, since they’re hand-made, but long-term, you’re money ahead because they last much longer. Just ask many of our loggers in our area. I know of many who save up the money and buy the Kulien boots, and even have them rebuilt a time or two before replacing them with a new pair. You just have to save up to get on board with the first pair, then over time, you’re saving money.
I've never had a pair of Churchills. But, I have loved Geier since a young age, like you with your Churchills. Growing up around Chelan, in the serious cold winters, Geiers were sold locally and were clearly superior to anything else sold in the area.
I was really pleasantly surprised when I moved here and saw the little workshop where they are created.
One of my classmates worked for Geier when I was in high school. Small place on Main street. You'd miss it if you weren't looking for it. You certainly wouldn't think they'd be making gloves commercially there! I've heard it pronounced both "Gear" and "Guyer," the latter being more common.
I need to grab another pair of Churchills.
Now, there's another glove manufacturer out at the Port of Centralia, off of Gallagher Rd. Centralia fur and hide, Inc. That's where I got my motorcycle gloves. How much? I traded in a deer hide from hunting season straight across. The deer hide was only hours old, as we shot the deer earlier in the day, but this group was fine with that. I got the gloves, and they said our hide will likely be turned into a drumskin for the local Indian tribes. I still have those gloves and I almost always use them when I ride (I have a pair of Fox Racing gloves for the hot weather, but one of them got stuck behind a wall panel and I need to dig it out.)
I didn't know about Centralia Fur and Hide, but just checked them out online. Lots of stuff for the leather crafter!
I couldn't help but notice that they sell ermine tails, worn of course by the King of England. Since I'm WM again this year, I presume that I need one for my hat!
And, they sell raccoon, as I recall, you might have been looking for such for your next time in the East!
I have an Akubra Northwest Territory (see “The Man from Snowy River”) that I bought in Australia in 2002. It fit perfectly when I bought it over the warnings of the lady in the hat shop that the leather headband would shrink once exposed to sweat. It did and I now rarely wear it because it’s too tight. I should have taken her experienced advice.
I believe we need to right size our fraternity. We are in my opinion, supporting more building and organizational infrastructure than we have the members to justify and it’s distracting from our core experience. The temporal and profane is distracting from the contemplative and transformational aspects of our craft.
Holy Smokes VW. Akubra is a truly fine hat, and 'Snowy River' is a really great shape. A Tilley from when Alex Tilley was still at the helm is probably my most worn hat, but an old Akubra Snowy River that I've probably had for thirty years or more is a close second. It still looks great.
In any event, the shrinking headband problem you mention is a really easy fix. I'd be happy to help.
As for Masonry...
In the years that I was in the Grand line, traveling from Lodge to Lodge throughout the Jurisdiction I was able to identify those Lodges that were truly thriving. Those Lodges that stand head and shoulders above the rest. The ones that will clearly survive no matter what happens to the broader Craft. Fully half of them don't own their own building. Those Lodges aren't spending their time and energy (our two rarest commodities) trying to figure out how to keep a building going, so they can focus all of their efforts on the Lodge itself.
I also agree that we have far too much organizational infrastructure. Our United States Grand Lodges have a bureaucracy and policies designed to govern a Craft of well in excess of four million men. But that bureaucracy is governing around eight hundred thousand men.
But, that eight hundred thousand number is actually misleading. It's lower than that. Most Grand Lodges count 'memberships' not 'noses.' So, I for example, am counted five times. Not as one man, but as five men.
Of course, in many Grand Lodges, including my own, back in the heyday of membership growth, such plural Lodge memberships weren't a thing. So that four plus million was actually four plus million. Now, not so much. That masks, to an extent, our true membership numbers.
MWB Bailey, I think this ties in nicely with the discussion the other day. It is much harder for mass production to put the artisan touches on a product with the same level of care.
The discerning client or seeker will know the difference when they see, feel, and experience it. All we need to do is focus on creating and maintaining excellence in Craftwork to draw and retain quality members who desire what they have likely only read about.
I certainly agree, if we strive for excellence it shows, and will attract excellence in turn.
But, I think we can't forget that word 'strive' either. We are all human, and Masonry is a human institution, so we will never be perfect, but we must strive towards that impossible state.
Defining that niche is going to be challenging in some jurisdictions until those who "remember the great old days" stop trying to define Freemasonry by what it was when they were young men, children, and Masons.
As you say with the Golden Age of Fraternalism, Freemasonry grew and took on so many more "things" than what makes it great to begin with; Our core mission - making good men better men.
We certainly don't do that with the distractions of all the buildings and historical landmarks we claw to hold on to. We certainly don't do that with all the distraction of the Grand Lodges voting in more and more charitable burdens on the pockets of the brethren.
Starting in the Grand Lodge we'll have to see a return to focus. Otherwise nothing will change in the larger scale. The individual Lodges can influence their individual outcomes, but the Grand Lodge has to play a part in reducing the mission.
I think that it is understandable why Freemasonry took on so many 'things' during the golden age. All those men needed something to do. Money and manpower were both available in tremendous excess, so it was put to work.
But, as you rightly point out, we can't keep looking back and trying to get back to the 'good ol' days' of massive membership numbers, and varied massive projects.
And, you're also right, much of this return to focus will have to begin at the Grand Lodge level. Our Grand Lodges must focus on our core mission, just as our Lodges do.
The mass market expansion of Masonry left us with lodge buildings that eat up too much of our time and resources. Our niche will need to figure out how we continue our craft without out these grand, yet expensive, edifices. Afterall, it is a hard sell to new brother that, after first recieving his lambskin apron, we then hand him a bucket to bail water from a sinking ship.
“Our niche will need to figure out how we continue our craft without out these grand, yet expensive, edifices.”
This has been a topic that’s been covered a lot on Emeth. And it’s a topic that MW Cameron and I have worked with a lot, being members of our Building Association for the large Lodge building we’re in. Is it an albatross, or an asset? Cool thing is our newer members are seeing it as a potential asset, and are making solid efforts to take advantage of that. But many of our old Lodge buildings have degraded to the point to where it would take a significant amount of capital to restore them to where they could be a potential asset. Oftentimes it’s not feasible. Or as you note, the building’s so damn big it’s a challenge to maintain and manage.
Back in September, I visited two Spokane Lodges in their “new” building in downtown Spokane, WA. The old one was magnificent, but huge. So they downsized (oops! Right-sized) and moved into a building on the other side of downtown. But they took steps to make that Lodge room a LODGE room. You step inside? It’s Freemasonry, not a large, sterile conference room with a few chairs set up and a wood-paneled East wall with a basic G. They made the effort, and you can actually FEEL it.
Yes, I know, at it’s root, you can hold a Lodge meeting of Brothers in a garage, or as they ‘joke’ here, a barbershop. But if you want a cool meeting place? You can do it, and not need that giant Lodge building that costs a fortune to maintain.
We are undoubtedly very lucky because those Masons who built our building did so in such a way as to ensure that there would always be significant commercial rents to pay for it. And that has worked well for over 100 years.
But, the building is much more massive than we actually need, making our Lodge room a vast empty space most of the time. We may need to consider doing what was done in Spokane, even if not for fiscal reasons.
I don't know, for certain, what the ultimate solution is, but I think it probably looks something like this:
Those buildings that are in themselves significant sources of income, able to pay for themselves, should and will likely remain in our ownership.
Those Lodges that set aside enough investments, whereby the investments throw off enough to pay for the building will likely remain.
Those buildings that are considered by the broader Craft to be so significant that they need to remain within the Craft, but that can't be paid for by their ownership should be financed by the broader Craft. As is done with the George Washington Masonic Memorial. This is how massive, and massively important buildings can be saved.
The rest, yep, if an income to support them can't be found, they need to go.
Here’s another take on how come our Lodge rooms are as large as they are:
“But, the building is much more massive than we actually need, making our Lodge room a vast empty space most of the time.” Many of us look at the peak period of membership, which is in the late 1950’s. For example, our Centralia Lodge reached just over 400 members in 1959. However, the Lodge did not have nearly that many members when the building was built. In 1916, it had only 145 members. However, in 1919 it bumped up to 180, then in 1920, it had 205 members. The sharp increase might have prompted Bro. Uhlmann to have a larger room built in anticipation of a continuation of the membership boom, which was understandable, and although there was a drop due to the depression and WWII, he wound up being correct – for a period of time, as noted in these posts. I invite other possible reasons and perspectives.
As for ours and some other Lodge buildings in our state (examples include Bremerton and Wenatchee,) there are provisions to use other rooms to hold Lodge. In the examples I listed, they have two Lodge rooms – a large (in Bremerton’s case, huge,) and a small Lodge room. Olympia has their large room and the replica Lodge room. In our case, we only have the one purpose-built Lodge room, but we have two other rooms that could be used as Lodge rooms, or in one case, even converted (one of my crazy ideas.) Then use the large room for special events, such as Grand Officer receptions, memorials/funerals, and other events that draw a large crowd. I’ll be honest, our Lodge room has been packed more than once this year, just not all the time.
And to be clear, the new Brothers WANT to try these ideas for our building as an asset, and are volunteering to put in the effort. They see the building as a springboard to make our Lodge more financially secure to purchase more items and technology to then make the Lodge itself thrive more in today’s society, but with the principles unique to Freemasonry.
I do think that the problem of a 'too large to properly communicate' Lodge room can be overcome. I'm very pleased with the experiment of doing all the ritualistic work in the Lodge room, but taking care of all the business in the little social hall next to it. That allows everyone to hear and be heard. Something that might not be possible otherwise.
I also think your idea of converting a smaller space within a Temple into a second, smaller Lodge room is superb, and as you mention, our Jurisdiction has examples of this. Those were, I think however, purpose built in that way when the Temple's were constructed. The only stumbling block that I see with conversion is when those smaller spaces are being utilized by other groups for other things.
One thing we do know from our past history is that Lodges used to meet at tables. I don't mean at specialized 'table Lodges.' Rather we know that their regular meetings were held at tables. That too could be a way of creating intimate and effective space within a room otherwise far too large.
“The only stumbling block that I see with conversion is when those smaller spaces are being utilized by other groups for other things.”
Correct! But when that smaller room is not being used for constructive purposes, it brings to mind the old term, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” The room becomes a dumping ground for surplus crap that those other groups can’t bear to discard. And while efforts can and have been made to clean up those rooms, the room becomes a “crapless vacuum,” to invent a term. Without diligence, the room will eventually revert to being once again filled with clutter.
If practical, one way to prevent that clutter from returning is to take that room, clean it up and paint it, and install Masonic Lodge furniture in it. If your Lodge has an extra set of podiums, deacon rods and stands, and other items that would otherwise head to the dump as surplus, it’s a good opportunity to take those items, restore/update them, and put them in a place that will make a long-term purpose for the room, which will implicitly discourage people from using it as a storage room. But that room has to be used from time to time for a Lodge meeting. It might not even have to be a Stated Communication or a degree. It could be a practice or training. And the cool thing is you can make the room into a Lodge room that might have another type of theme. For example, I know of a Lodge that has surplus neon ‘G’s. Yeah, I know, those are common in the newer bland Lodge rooms, but now with the LED technology, you can take that Neon ‘G’ and enhance it with LED off-lighting and perhaps (brainstorming here) an LED level in the West and an LED plumb in the South. Lots of options here, kind of like a blank canvas, or, if the Lodge room has a weird shape, a unique canvas where you can create a unique Lodge room, capable of unique Lodge experiences!
Excellent!
Another excellent article. With my lodge’s annual elections just a few weeks away, the timing couldn’t be better. Masonry cannot—and should not—try to be everything to everyone. Every time we dilute our expectations, we dilute our purpose.
We say today’s candidates “don’t have time” to learn long-form proficiency, so we create a short form. Then we allow that short form to be butchered, reassuring ourselves that “understanding the meaning” is good enough. We do the same with our openings and closings, our degree work, even our funerals. That slow erosion of standards touches every corner of the Craft.
When I joined in 2009, Colorado had around 14,000 members. Today we’re under 4500. Meanwhile, I visited a lodge in Dublin, Ireland last year. With a similar population to Colorado, Ireland has 44,000 members. Ten times our number.
It is a difficult task to guard the West Gate while improving our numbers. Yet the strength of the Craft has never depended on how many enter, but on the character of those admitted. Compromising the West Gate just to pad a roster is how we arrived at this crossroads. Integrity must come first—growth will follow.
So the question isn’t why membership is declining. The question is whether we’re willing to reclaim the standards that once built strong Masons, strong lodges, and strong communities. This election season is our chance to choose leadership that protects the integrity of the work, honors our traditions, and isn’t afraid to expect more—from candidates, from officers, and from ourselves.
If not now, when? And if not us, who?
I think that’s the bottom line here.
We’re all worried that our membership is going to collapse to zero by some year in the not-to-distant future and that we should panic to avoid that fate, but we do indeed have that niche, and there are plenty of men out there who are seeking that niche. Two of my three Lodges are gaining members who are seeking that niche and are very serious about it, and the third one received an inquirer who had many questions, almost all about that niche we’re talking about here.
It's true we’re never going to see those 1959 numbers again, and I think more and more of us are starting to realize that’s an aberration in the history of our craft. Many of our Lodges are focusing more on the 19th Century aspect of our craft, which is helping matters. To be fair, I think the decline will continue for a while – there are a LOT of members on our rolls that are over 80 years old. But, I think that will level out and even increase, perhaps to a level that we’re seeing today. And it will be a stronger membership overall compared to the mid-20th Century where members were members of a slew of other organizations. BUT, as you say, the Lodges need to get on track now, not later.
>>>We’re all worried that our membership is going to collapse to zero by some year in >>>the not-to-distant future
Yeah, it won't collapse to zero. Lodges that are not adding value to their Mason's lives will collapse to zero. Other Lodges that are adding value will thrive. Of course there are more of the former than the latter.
>>>Two of my three Lodges are gaining members who are seeking that niche and are >>>very serious about it
Yes, this is the trend I see as well.
>>>I think the decline will continue for a while – there are a LOT of members on our rolls >>>that are over 80 years old.
Undoubtedly.
>>>Lodges need to get on track now, not later.
Agreed. Now is the time. We've chased 1957 for far too long.
Thank you. I'm glad that this was valuable to you.
>>>We say today’s candidates “don’t have time” to learn long-form proficiency, so we create a >>>short form.
This was done here in Washington, sometime before I was a Mason, and in my opinion it was a disaster. It still remains an option for Lodges here, but I believe that almost all of them have moved back to the traditional way of proving Proficiency.
When we come up with new things that are going to somehow 'save Masonry' and those things are shown to not work, we need to get rid of them. But, alas, that seems pretty much impossible.
Certainly here there have been efforts to drive a stake through the heart of the 'Alternate Proficiency' but to no avail.
>>>So the question isn’t why membership is declining. The question is whether we’re willing >>>to reclaim the standards that once built strong Masons, strong lodges, and strong >>>communities.
Exactly.
>>>This election season is our chance to choose leadership that protects the integrity of the >>>work, honors our traditions, and isn’t afraid to expect more
This is spot on. We must vote for the good of Masonry, not for the fellow who's turn it is.
Churchill Gloves.
Yes, one of the more famous sets of gloves they made a short while ago was a pair of motorcycle gloves for Bro. Shaquille O’Neal. There was a Chronicle article about it – I’ll have to dig for it, as the article showed the template for Shaq’s glove vs. the average glove.
I still have a pair of basic Churchills at home in my back yard. They’re totally trashed, but they’re older than many of our Brothers, as I had them when I was in my mid teens. They took an incredible amount of abuse. It’s kind of like the Kulien boots that are made – holy smokes! Only a block away from the Churchill factory! Same idea. You pay a lot, since they’re hand-made, but long-term, you’re money ahead because they last much longer. Just ask many of our loggers in our area. I know of many who save up the money and buy the Kulien boots, and even have them rebuilt a time or two before replacing them with a new pair. You just have to save up to get on board with the first pair, then over time, you’re saving money.
I've never had a pair of Churchills. But, I have loved Geier since a young age, like you with your Churchills. Growing up around Chelan, in the serious cold winters, Geiers were sold locally and were clearly superior to anything else sold in the area.
I was really pleasantly surprised when I moved here and saw the little workshop where they are created.
One of my classmates worked for Geier when I was in high school. Small place on Main street. You'd miss it if you weren't looking for it. You certainly wouldn't think they'd be making gloves commercially there! I've heard it pronounced both "Gear" and "Guyer," the latter being more common.
I need to grab another pair of Churchills.
Now, there's another glove manufacturer out at the Port of Centralia, off of Gallagher Rd. Centralia fur and hide, Inc. That's where I got my motorcycle gloves. How much? I traded in a deer hide from hunting season straight across. The deer hide was only hours old, as we shot the deer earlier in the day, but this group was fine with that. I got the gloves, and they said our hide will likely be turned into a drumskin for the local Indian tribes. I still have those gloves and I almost always use them when I ride (I have a pair of Fox Racing gloves for the hot weather, but one of them got stuck behind a wall panel and I need to dig it out.)
I didn't know about Centralia Fur and Hide, but just checked them out online. Lots of stuff for the leather crafter!
I couldn't help but notice that they sell ermine tails, worn of course by the King of England. Since I'm WM again this year, I presume that I need one for my hat!
And, they sell raccoon, as I recall, you might have been looking for such for your next time in the East!
I have an Akubra Northwest Territory (see “The Man from Snowy River”) that I bought in Australia in 2002. It fit perfectly when I bought it over the warnings of the lady in the hat shop that the leather headband would shrink once exposed to sweat. It did and I now rarely wear it because it’s too tight. I should have taken her experienced advice.
I believe we need to right size our fraternity. We are in my opinion, supporting more building and organizational infrastructure than we have the members to justify and it’s distracting from our core experience. The temporal and profane is distracting from the contemplative and transformational aspects of our craft.
Holy Smokes VW. Akubra is a truly fine hat, and 'Snowy River' is a really great shape. A Tilley from when Alex Tilley was still at the helm is probably my most worn hat, but an old Akubra Snowy River that I've probably had for thirty years or more is a close second. It still looks great.
In any event, the shrinking headband problem you mention is a really easy fix. I'd be happy to help.
As for Masonry...
In the years that I was in the Grand line, traveling from Lodge to Lodge throughout the Jurisdiction I was able to identify those Lodges that were truly thriving. Those Lodges that stand head and shoulders above the rest. The ones that will clearly survive no matter what happens to the broader Craft. Fully half of them don't own their own building. Those Lodges aren't spending their time and energy (our two rarest commodities) trying to figure out how to keep a building going, so they can focus all of their efforts on the Lodge itself.
I also agree that we have far too much organizational infrastructure. Our United States Grand Lodges have a bureaucracy and policies designed to govern a Craft of well in excess of four million men. But that bureaucracy is governing around eight hundred thousand men.
But, that eight hundred thousand number is actually misleading. It's lower than that. Most Grand Lodges count 'memberships' not 'noses.' So, I for example, am counted five times. Not as one man, but as five men.
Of course, in many Grand Lodges, including my own, back in the heyday of membership growth, such plural Lodge memberships weren't a thing. So that four plus million was actually four plus million. Now, not so much. That masks, to an extent, our true membership numbers.
MWB Bailey, I think this ties in nicely with the discussion the other day. It is much harder for mass production to put the artisan touches on a product with the same level of care.
The discerning client or seeker will know the difference when they see, feel, and experience it. All we need to do is focus on creating and maintaining excellence in Craftwork to draw and retain quality members who desire what they have likely only read about.
Great post!
Thanks Brother. I'm glad you enjoyed the post.
I certainly agree, if we strive for excellence it shows, and will attract excellence in turn.
But, I think we can't forget that word 'strive' either. We are all human, and Masonry is a human institution, so we will never be perfect, but we must strive towards that impossible state.
Wholly agreed, it reminds me of the quote, “Perfection is to be ever aspired, yet never attained.”
I love your writings Cameron.
Thank you Brother! I really appreciate your kind words!
Defining that niche is going to be challenging in some jurisdictions until those who "remember the great old days" stop trying to define Freemasonry by what it was when they were young men, children, and Masons.
As you say with the Golden Age of Fraternalism, Freemasonry grew and took on so many more "things" than what makes it great to begin with; Our core mission - making good men better men.
We certainly don't do that with the distractions of all the buildings and historical landmarks we claw to hold on to. We certainly don't do that with all the distraction of the Grand Lodges voting in more and more charitable burdens on the pockets of the brethren.
Starting in the Grand Lodge we'll have to see a return to focus. Otherwise nothing will change in the larger scale. The individual Lodges can influence their individual outcomes, but the Grand Lodge has to play a part in reducing the mission.
I think that it is understandable why Freemasonry took on so many 'things' during the golden age. All those men needed something to do. Money and manpower were both available in tremendous excess, so it was put to work.
But, as you rightly point out, we can't keep looking back and trying to get back to the 'good ol' days' of massive membership numbers, and varied massive projects.
And, you're also right, much of this return to focus will have to begin at the Grand Lodge level. Our Grand Lodges must focus on our core mission, just as our Lodges do.
“The more people you can eliminate as potential customers, the more successful you will be.”
— Fast Company article many years ago