Le Droit Humain is a Masonic organization (not recognized by Regular Grand Lodges) that has existed since 1893. It began in Europe but has spread in time to include two Lodges within an easy driving distance of my home.
They have an interesting question on their Membership Petition. A question that I thought we might do well to discuss.
They ask:
“If accepted do you agree to attend Masonic meetings on a regular basis and to inform the Lodge if you cannot attend?”
Most, not all, of our Lodges that I am familiar with make no such demand on our potential candidates. Generally, we do not tell them that they are expected to attend.
Expectations are interesting things. We very often get what we expect.
And, in most of our Lodges, the active membership is a very small percentage of the total membership.
So that begs an interesting question or two…
Should we tell potential candidates that we expect them to attend Lodge meetings, or have an excuse not to attend?
I think its the same in most lodges. In my own lodge some times we don't even have enough people to fill the chairs. It's a poor state to be in but in the UK 🇬🇧 see it all the time.
I’m a firm believer of attendance being a requirement, not an option. In other parts of the world that is the case. When we petition to join the organization, we come in with certain expectations that the lodge will offer us; at the same time, the lodge should expect us to be active masons and not just card holding members. If there is value in what we are seeking in masonry, we can’t get it, by just calling ourselves masons and not participating in our own development into better men.
A painfully timely question for me. Just this month I decided to stop participating in my lodge. The leadership is so inept and annoying, I can’t tolerate it.
Anyway, Le Droit Humain, as we can infer from its name, adheres to the European way of thinking, so lodge membership is kept small and consequently the members are needed heart, mind, and body.
We in the mainstream make the mistake of emphasizing the way out. Rituals that I know tell the initiate his attendance is desired, but should not interfere with family and business. That’s the right priority, but it’s common sense, and I don’t know what message actually is received upon hearing it. Then there’s the standard failure of a lodge to inquire into the absent brother’s well being and whereabouts.
Also, we permit participation in our too numerous appendant groups despite dereliction from lodge. We all know guys we worked hard to bring into the fraternity only to watch him head off to the Shrine Motor Corps or something, never to be seen again.
In my jurisdiction there is a requirement of attendance in order to advance thru the degrees and to be able to run for any seat. Also we are require to send an excuse before the meeting in case of absence and after a certain number of unexcused consecutive absence, membership is removed with proper notification of course.
We receive the notification for the lodge work by e-mail. The intention to participate and if someone cannot attend the "meeting" must be given as a reply to this e-mail.
A symbolic amount must be paid for "undocumented absence" together with the next year's membership fee.
This is also recorded in the statute.
In fact, during the interview, we mention that we basically want the member to be able to participate in the work as often as possible. Of course, not everyone can come every time.
I heartily agree that if you join the craft you should attend the meetings.
But...
There are a number of factors to consider. First, a lot of the members move away. Second, some are too old or infirm to attend. Third, work may interfere, jobs change, schedules change, etc.
Then, there's the elephant in the room, the meetings are boring, pointless, or mismanaged and drove men away.
And of course, the appendant body issue.
Finally, personal quarrels or grudges.
We also place too much emphasis on maintaining memberships in home/mother lodges.
My lodge has 74 members, of which I'll see maybe eight at a meeting. As SW, I'm looking at the membership that currently attend, and I can't find anyone to sit as JW next year. No one wants to cycle through the chairs (again).
Some lodges have no problems with attendance, others like mine are dying due to lack of participation. But there are too many reasons/excuses why men don't support their own lodges.
I don't disagree with any of the comments. What seems to be missing here is a requirement by the lodge to conduct meetings worth attending. The business meeting is obviously necessary. The fellowship enjoyable. Where is the substance? The continuing Masonic education, the intriguing speaker...
If we were to have a requirement for attendance for the membership at large, there should be a requirement for the officers of the lodge to conduct quality ritual and a program of some merit beyond the business meeting. With this perhaps attendance would take care of itself.
I've missed very few meetings for lodges I am a member of. I'm up to 3 lodges. I'm an officer in 2. When I did miss a meeting, it was often with a heavy heart and plenty of notice so they could fill my chair.
I often hear, we are a volunteer organization, which is true. But if people aren't willing to volunteer their time, the lodge will atrophy and die. A lodge is the membership, as we often have heard. If the Brothers don't make time for it, then the results will show.
First, I'd be happy if Brothers would simply RSVP so we know how many to expect. There are a few Brothers who do all the work to prepare for the meeting and we hire a caterer to provide a very nice meal. Caterers need a headcount. It's a basic courtesy to let the Lodge know, one way or another, if you'll be there.
Second, simply requiring attendance won't work. Might have worked decades ago but not now. Our society has transformed from a culture of obedience to a culture of empowerment, and empowerment translates to "you're not the boss of me", particularly for volunteer organizations. (As an aside, there are other habits and practices imbedded in our Fraternity that remain rooted in the now-defunct culture of obedience and we'll suffer in the long term is we don't figure that out in the short term ... but that's a different discussion).
It's on the Lodge to give Brothers a reason to attend, and it's on the Brothers to extend the basic courtesy of sending an RSVP.
I get the idea of mandatory attendance, and how it seems a productive idea, in principle. Pragmatically I see some problems.
First, if attendance is required for membership, we will see a loss of membership and revenue. Maybe that’s OK. But I have seen brethren (including myself) who periodically stop attending for long periods and then return. We would lose many of them forever.
Second, if the Lodge experience was a positive one there would not need to be any requirement of attendance. Of the set of brethren that stop attending regularly, there is a subset that are looking for more Light, and not finding it in the Lodge. These men simply tire of sitting thru the same meeting over and over again, and don’t find the social aspect enough to sustain the time away from family and their own interests. Some might think it's ok to lose these brethren, as they are not supporting the Lodge. Maybe that’s true, but some of these men might well be a huge resource in the future. I have seen some of these brethren try to move their Lodge to a place with a more active program of development, and fail....
Finally, and maybe this is the 400 lb gorilla, it seems a ‘normal’ (the statistical meaning of the word) that brethren join, get in line, are very active, then they drift away. Most lodges have more brethren on the roles who are not attending than are attending. Why? Ask them and listen. They pay their dues, but they are inactive. That seems to be an interesting data point. They pay dues and seem to get nothing for them. Maybe there is an important answer here? Once filled with zeal, now ambivalent. Something happened.
I recognize my response might be in the minority, but I find that legislating a requirement, especially in a volunteer organization, rarely motivates. Compliance will likely not occur and there will be a loss of membership. I have also found that exploring the reasons for a pattern of behavior can yield very useful information.
I cant remember where I saw it, but back in the days when masons were "SUMMONED" by the Worshipful Master to attend Lodge stated meeting, it also stated if unable to attend the mason must advise the WM and Secretary ,and non-compliance resulted in financial penalty.
Every Master Mason understands that a summons is a command to attend the Communication of the lodge for which the summons is issued, or the occasion - funeral, trial, cornerstone laying; or other function - to which he is bidden. Every Master Mason knows why he must "due answer make," either by attendance, or submitting an acceptable excuse, such as illness, absence beyond the length of his cable tow, or other inability to be present.
Every Master Mason understands that a summons is a command to attend the Communication of the lodge for which the summons is issued, or the occasion - funeral, trial, cornerstone laying; or other function - to which he is bidden. Every Master Mason knows why he must "due answer make," either by attendance, or submitting an acceptable excuse, such as illness, absence beyond the length of his cable tow, or other inability to be present.
In the United States the use of the summons grows rarer with every passing year, as applied to a whole membership. Most jurisdictions would commonly use the summons to command witnesses at a Masonic trial. In some the master uses the summons to get a sufficient number of brethren present for Masonic Funerals. Unhappily, the press of modern life, the casual manner in which too many regard their Masonry, the laxness of some Masters and the "laissez faire" policy of some Grand Lodge leaders, has allowed the sanctity of the summons to be somewhat tarnished. A Mason is Masonicaly bound to :due answer make" to a summons. Failure to answer a summons, then, is a Masonic offense, for which the offender may be tried.
I found this after Internet search. Hope it helps.
I'm a regular visitor to a lodge that demands this of their members. They're not in the habit of charging a fee so far as I know but you're expected to attend or notify the lodge in a timely manner (regrets) if you cannot attend. I think this should be a stipulation of lodge membership, personally. After all, why join an organization that you're not going to be actively engaged with?
I have often thought that some sort of participation should be a requirement. With the obvious exceptions of health age and family obligations
I think its the same in most lodges. In my own lodge some times we don't even have enough people to fill the chairs. It's a poor state to be in but in the UK 🇬🇧 see it all the time.
I’m a firm believer of attendance being a requirement, not an option. In other parts of the world that is the case. When we petition to join the organization, we come in with certain expectations that the lodge will offer us; at the same time, the lodge should expect us to be active masons and not just card holding members. If there is value in what we are seeking in masonry, we can’t get it, by just calling ourselves masons and not participating in our own development into better men.
A painfully timely question for me. Just this month I decided to stop participating in my lodge. The leadership is so inept and annoying, I can’t tolerate it.
Anyway, Le Droit Humain, as we can infer from its name, adheres to the European way of thinking, so lodge membership is kept small and consequently the members are needed heart, mind, and body.
We in the mainstream make the mistake of emphasizing the way out. Rituals that I know tell the initiate his attendance is desired, but should not interfere with family and business. That’s the right priority, but it’s common sense, and I don’t know what message actually is received upon hearing it. Then there’s the standard failure of a lodge to inquire into the absent brother’s well being and whereabouts.
Also, we permit participation in our too numerous appendant groups despite dereliction from lodge. We all know guys we worked hard to bring into the fraternity only to watch him head off to the Shrine Motor Corps or something, never to be seen again.
Jay
In my jurisdiction there is a requirement of attendance in order to advance thru the degrees and to be able to run for any seat. Also we are require to send an excuse before the meeting in case of absence and after a certain number of unexcused consecutive absence, membership is removed with proper notification of course.
The Price Hall Lodges near me do a roll call of officers, and specify who is present and who gave excuse.
This would be too cumbersome for a large membership, but for at least those who committed to being in a chair teaches accountability.
Our Lodge, for example, it works as follows.
We receive the notification for the lodge work by e-mail. The intention to participate and if someone cannot attend the "meeting" must be given as a reply to this e-mail.
A symbolic amount must be paid for "undocumented absence" together with the next year's membership fee.
This is also recorded in the statute.
In fact, during the interview, we mention that we basically want the member to be able to participate in the work as often as possible. Of course, not everyone can come every time.
In one of my Lodges, I read the bylaws after being raised. Two monthly meetings, all through the year.
But the Lodge actually went dark in the summer - none of the active members, save the new guy, bothered to read their own bylaws.
Couple years go by and we pass a bylaw change to go dark.
Since then, we’ve gone from two meetings per month to one, because it’s easier.
I’m tempted to be cheeky and introduce another bylaw change for consideration, to drop us down to two meetings per year, the minimum allowed in WA.
Yes they should attend.
The appendant bodies do not have Preferment over your mother Lodge.
I heartily agree that if you join the craft you should attend the meetings.
But...
There are a number of factors to consider. First, a lot of the members move away. Second, some are too old or infirm to attend. Third, work may interfere, jobs change, schedules change, etc.
Then, there's the elephant in the room, the meetings are boring, pointless, or mismanaged and drove men away.
And of course, the appendant body issue.
Finally, personal quarrels or grudges.
We also place too much emphasis on maintaining memberships in home/mother lodges.
My lodge has 74 members, of which I'll see maybe eight at a meeting. As SW, I'm looking at the membership that currently attend, and I can't find anyone to sit as JW next year. No one wants to cycle through the chairs (again).
Some lodges have no problems with attendance, others like mine are dying due to lack of participation. But there are too many reasons/excuses why men don't support their own lodges.
I don't disagree with any of the comments. What seems to be missing here is a requirement by the lodge to conduct meetings worth attending. The business meeting is obviously necessary. The fellowship enjoyable. Where is the substance? The continuing Masonic education, the intriguing speaker...
If we were to have a requirement for attendance for the membership at large, there should be a requirement for the officers of the lodge to conduct quality ritual and a program of some merit beyond the business meeting. With this perhaps attendance would take care of itself.
I've missed very few meetings for lodges I am a member of. I'm up to 3 lodges. I'm an officer in 2. When I did miss a meeting, it was often with a heavy heart and plenty of notice so they could fill my chair.
I often hear, we are a volunteer organization, which is true. But if people aren't willing to volunteer their time, the lodge will atrophy and die. A lodge is the membership, as we often have heard. If the Brothers don't make time for it, then the results will show.
I have two reactions:
First, I'd be happy if Brothers would simply RSVP so we know how many to expect. There are a few Brothers who do all the work to prepare for the meeting and we hire a caterer to provide a very nice meal. Caterers need a headcount. It's a basic courtesy to let the Lodge know, one way or another, if you'll be there.
Second, simply requiring attendance won't work. Might have worked decades ago but not now. Our society has transformed from a culture of obedience to a culture of empowerment, and empowerment translates to "you're not the boss of me", particularly for volunteer organizations. (As an aside, there are other habits and practices imbedded in our Fraternity that remain rooted in the now-defunct culture of obedience and we'll suffer in the long term is we don't figure that out in the short term ... but that's a different discussion).
It's on the Lodge to give Brothers a reason to attend, and it's on the Brothers to extend the basic courtesy of sending an RSVP.
I get the idea of mandatory attendance, and how it seems a productive idea, in principle. Pragmatically I see some problems.
First, if attendance is required for membership, we will see a loss of membership and revenue. Maybe that’s OK. But I have seen brethren (including myself) who periodically stop attending for long periods and then return. We would lose many of them forever.
Second, if the Lodge experience was a positive one there would not need to be any requirement of attendance. Of the set of brethren that stop attending regularly, there is a subset that are looking for more Light, and not finding it in the Lodge. These men simply tire of sitting thru the same meeting over and over again, and don’t find the social aspect enough to sustain the time away from family and their own interests. Some might think it's ok to lose these brethren, as they are not supporting the Lodge. Maybe that’s true, but some of these men might well be a huge resource in the future. I have seen some of these brethren try to move their Lodge to a place with a more active program of development, and fail....
Finally, and maybe this is the 400 lb gorilla, it seems a ‘normal’ (the statistical meaning of the word) that brethren join, get in line, are very active, then they drift away. Most lodges have more brethren on the roles who are not attending than are attending. Why? Ask them and listen. They pay their dues, but they are inactive. That seems to be an interesting data point. They pay dues and seem to get nothing for them. Maybe there is an important answer here? Once filled with zeal, now ambivalent. Something happened.
I recognize my response might be in the minority, but I find that legislating a requirement, especially in a volunteer organization, rarely motivates. Compliance will likely not occur and there will be a loss of membership. I have also found that exploring the reasons for a pattern of behavior can yield very useful information.
I cant remember where I saw it, but back in the days when masons were "SUMMONED" by the Worshipful Master to attend Lodge stated meeting, it also stated if unable to attend the mason must advise the WM and Secretary ,and non-compliance resulted in financial penalty.
SHORT TALK BULLETIN - Vol.IX March, 1931 No.3
Every Master Mason understands that a summons is a command to attend the Communication of the lodge for which the summons is issued, or the occasion - funeral, trial, cornerstone laying; or other function - to which he is bidden. Every Master Mason knows why he must "due answer make," either by attendance, or submitting an acceptable excuse, such as illness, absence beyond the length of his cable tow, or other inability to be present.
Every Master Mason understands that a summons is a command to attend the Communication of the lodge for which the summons is issued, or the occasion - funeral, trial, cornerstone laying; or other function - to which he is bidden. Every Master Mason knows why he must "due answer make," either by attendance, or submitting an acceptable excuse, such as illness, absence beyond the length of his cable tow, or other inability to be present.
In the United States the use of the summons grows rarer with every passing year, as applied to a whole membership. Most jurisdictions would commonly use the summons to command witnesses at a Masonic trial. In some the master uses the summons to get a sufficient number of brethren present for Masonic Funerals. Unhappily, the press of modern life, the casual manner in which too many regard their Masonry, the laxness of some Masters and the "laissez faire" policy of some Grand Lodge leaders, has allowed the sanctity of the summons to be somewhat tarnished. A Mason is Masonicaly bound to :due answer make" to a summons. Failure to answer a summons, then, is a Masonic offense, for which the offender may be tried.
I found this after Internet search. Hope it helps.
I'm a regular visitor to a lodge that demands this of their members. They're not in the habit of charging a fee so far as I know but you're expected to attend or notify the lodge in a timely manner (regrets) if you cannot attend. I think this should be a stipulation of lodge membership, personally. After all, why join an organization that you're not going to be actively engaged with?