Masons are so attracted to the idea of "tradition" that we fail to examine which traditions are relevant and useful versus the traditions that impair our otherwise good work. Hanging on to a failing lodge out of a sense of duty to tradition is kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.
Of course, before a lodge surrenders its charter o…
Masons are so attracted to the idea of "tradition" that we fail to examine which traditions are relevant and useful versus the traditions that impair our otherwise good work. Hanging on to a failing lodge out of a sense of duty to tradition is kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.
Of course, before a lodge surrenders its charter or consolidates with another lodge it's critical to understand why things aren't working. If the active membership is stale and has failed in earnest efforts to rejuvenate then at some point the wise thing to do is to turn out the lights. Once that decision is made the choice of consolidating or simply closing becomes a little simpler. But unless there is a clear and shared understanding of why individual lodges should exist in the first place the discussion becomes nothing more than a bunch of old men ruminating on why things aren't like they used to be.
I must add that as a past DDGM I'm flattered by the several comments in this thread suggesting that one of the solutions is to report the problems of a dying lodge to GL. However, these comments greatly overstate what any DDGM can do about this problem. By the time a lodge's circumstances warrant a report it's probably too late to do anything about it. There's been a lot of buzz in the last couple years about doing a better job of guarding the West Gate. We need similar buzz to help individual lodges to diagnose and remedy their issues.
You are correct, a DDGM is the eyes and ears of the GM, but not the mouth. The District Deputy doesn’t have the power to do anything, unless directed by the GM to do so. I happen to agree with that policy, as the lodges should have the autonomy of choice, after all, it’s their lodge. Giving extra powers to a district deputy simply weakens the powers of the WM, and the lodges no longer have the authority to choose who they elect to run their lodge. Instead, it is an appointment by GL for who is really in charge. I understand this can be frustrating for those District Deputies dealing with wayward lodges, but it’s really the right way to handle things.
Masons are so attracted to the idea of "tradition" that we fail to examine which traditions are relevant and useful versus the traditions that impair our otherwise good work. Hanging on to a failing lodge out of a sense of duty to tradition is kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.
Of course, before a lodge surrenders its charter or consolidates with another lodge it's critical to understand why things aren't working. If the active membership is stale and has failed in earnest efforts to rejuvenate then at some point the wise thing to do is to turn out the lights. Once that decision is made the choice of consolidating or simply closing becomes a little simpler. But unless there is a clear and shared understanding of why individual lodges should exist in the first place the discussion becomes nothing more than a bunch of old men ruminating on why things aren't like they used to be.
I must add that as a past DDGM I'm flattered by the several comments in this thread suggesting that one of the solutions is to report the problems of a dying lodge to GL. However, these comments greatly overstate what any DDGM can do about this problem. By the time a lodge's circumstances warrant a report it's probably too late to do anything about it. There's been a lot of buzz in the last couple years about doing a better job of guarding the West Gate. We need similar buzz to help individual lodges to diagnose and remedy their issues.
You are correct, a DDGM is the eyes and ears of the GM, but not the mouth. The District Deputy doesn’t have the power to do anything, unless directed by the GM to do so. I happen to agree with that policy, as the lodges should have the autonomy of choice, after all, it’s their lodge. Giving extra powers to a district deputy simply weakens the powers of the WM, and the lodges no longer have the authority to choose who they elect to run their lodge. Instead, it is an appointment by GL for who is really in charge. I understand this can be frustrating for those District Deputies dealing with wayward lodges, but it’s really the right way to handle things.
Among the things I greatly appreciated about being DDGM is that I had no authority. The last thing I wanted to do was to go around giving orders!