Throughout the history of our Fraternity Lodges have been formed, thrived, and sometimes died. When Lodges have died, over the long march of time, others form in their place.
We see this in Washington’s Jurisdiction, where one of our earliest Lodges, one of the Lodges that created the Grand Lodge of Washington passed out of existence very long ago. Grand Mound No. 3 thrived for a time, but not a long time.
When we see a Lodge struggling and headed out of existence, I think it is our natural instinct to jump in and help. To try and save the Lodge. To work within it in an attempt to get it thriving once again.
But I think it behoves us to ask ourselves, is this a good use of our time and energy?
Is working mightily to try and save a failing Lodge better than putting our time, talents, and efforts into our own Lodge? Working to ensure that it remains strong?
Ultimately, does it even work if Masons from neighboring Lodges jump in to try and assist the struggling Lodge, or is the fight already lost by the time severe issues are noticeable to visitors?
Are we better off allowing struggling Lodges to fade away so that space is opened for a new Lodge to someday take its place?
I think that these are important questions to ask ourselves, and I hope you will join me in chatting about it…
This is a relevant question, and almost feels personal.
In my brief masonic career I have visited several jurisdictions, and many lodges. Most do not have stewards, and some a PM sitting as at least one warden.
One of the landmarks found in my home jurisdiction, is that one lodge may not involve itself in the affairs of another.
Now, let me be clear. A Lodge is not a building, it is the assembly of duly elected and installed BROTHERS, operating under a legitimate charter.
As a plural member I have seen first hand, a healthy, well attended lodge, become empty.
This is the fault of the WM. Not anyone else. He sits with immense authority and responsibility.
However, this is a volunteer organization. And I have no interest in being browbeat or manipulated. As one PM put it, "We pay for this abuse!"
Whether it be your mother lodge, or a Lodge of excellent men. The future of a Lodge resides in the east. And that Man's willingness to not just lead, but foster an environment brothers want to work in.
Nowhere in any of my obligations, did I promise and swear to prop up a fellow lodge. Only a fellow brother, if I can do so, within the length of my cable tow.
It is undeniable that we are in a prolonged season of contraction. We must govern ourselves accordingly. How then, is it wise to wear yourself out?
If a Lodge, no matter how old, cannot maintain a public presence in such a way as to attract new members. Then it is the fault of its own officers. And we, no matter the immense affection, are not obligated to step into their affairs.
good point that we don't have obligations to lodges but to each other.
Related question though: if a lodge is failing and contains a brother who is a member of that one singular lodge, what do you think about helping & assisting that brother to affiliate elsewhere?
Having been one of those brothers that joined a second lodge to try and help them get back on their feet, I can speak from experience. There are a number of obvious warning signs of a dying lodge, this is a big one.
But also demographics can play a big part. Demographics change over time. A local town for example, has gradually changed where the populace became younger, more progressive, affluent, etc and the interest in joining fraternal organizations starts to wane. Perhaps there just isn’t enough men in the local area interested in freemasonry and regardless of any effort on the part of the lodge, there just isn’t people knocking on the door. Then the desire to guard the west gate weakens, and standards slip.
I know of several lodges that should have closed years ago. But the few remaining brothers propping them up are too stubborn or recalcitrant to realize when enough is enough. Even lodges sitting in the same building should just merge and get it over with.
The demographic trends are super, super clear; there are fewer masons now than 20 years ago and the future probably looks smaller too. This doesn't have to be a disaster though. It is a massive strategic opportunity to refocus and re-invigorate the craft.
Lodges which fade away and gradually close are really, really bad for the craft. As they lose their critical mass, their members drift out of orbit and have no Masonic home anymore.
We talked about this on a different thread a while ago. If you have a shrinking number of Masons in the same number of lodges, everybody gets spread thin and you end up with 10 struggling lodges instead of 3 healthy ones. When we allow lodges to struggle with no real plan forward, we are bleeding interested masons out of 10 different wounds. The outcome (the eventual shuttering of the lodge) frequently doesn't change in the end.
So if the lodge can't continue to be viable (and in other states we have metrics around this, like the existence of a progressive line with no WM repeats, a candidate pipeline, and so on), unless the WM or district has a super clear plan to reverse that, time & decay will deliver you to the same outcome much as standing on a moving walkway at the airport takes you to the same place no matter what your intentions are.
If it's going to happen it's ultra-important for leadership to accept this and make the best of it. Frequently that takes the form of consolidating two (or more!) lodges into one another.
The consolidation process is brutally difficult; what with monetary issues, loss of lodge identity, people needing to travel to a new place, and a new social group being formed and needing to "gel". I can already hear the brethren yelling "It's not that simple" in the background, and well frankly they're right but it doesn't change facts, it needs to happen.
How? When? Where? I'm not wise enough to know these answers, but I know it's gotta happen. When it doesn't happen, I've seen the results, and they please no one.
The reality is that most officers in a Lodge are the few good men. So it is not until the charter is given up that they consider participating in another lodge. Many brothers derive a specific identity from their mother lodge. They're a "Columbia Mason", not just a mason. The social psychology of group dynamics do not change. Our obligations do not change our human nature.
I agree. Lodges continue to use up valuable energy struggling to survive when consolidation would be the best for Masonry. What we have now is a lot of small lodges many working hard to protect the building which I believe is not what Masonry is about. Its not the buildings its us that we should be working to build up. What the community sees is a number of small lodges most in old buildings with poor attendance when it could be one geographically located lodge with more members showing an attractive environment for a new generation of men to join.
When a Lodge becomes distressed, and membership wains, shouldn’t there be a series of reports from DDGMs outlining the reasons why a lodge is declining. Is it due to a single brother who is a poor leader? Is it because the lodge building is in need of repair and the financial health of the lodge, combined with the necessary work that is needed becomes overwhelming for the brothers? Regardless of the reasons, the good hearted efforts of a handful of brothers, typically isn’t going to be enough. If the decline is due to a poor leader, are the “new” brothers going to be able to change the leadership and culture of a lodge before it fails. If it’s due to financial reasons, the minimal amount of dues our lodges charge isn’t going be enough. A lodge in distress or decline should never come as a surprise to GL and if it does, then the question is why? Why hasn’t the DDGM(s) made the situation known. At what point should the GL get involved, to offer counsel and advice, before a lodge loses its charter. Again, this conversation circles around to guarding the West Gate and providing meaningful education and conversations within our lodges. We can have grand Temples (Some do) and plentiful financial resources (Some do) but without meaningful fellowship, no one will stay. A “successful” lodge should guard it’s West Gate well before agreeing to consolidating with a lodge that is closing.
Just as an addict has to WANT to quit before he can, a lodge has to want to survive and grow before it can. As Brother Highland points out, the lodge is the body of men, not the building. The Master wears the Hat and sits in the East for year (maybe longer--more on that), and as such, "Captains" the ship. He is not however, an almighty monarch. The Brethren should be willing and able to coach him, guide him, and let their desires be known. WB Geiss points out a lodge he and I joined to help them in recovery. Brother Geiss was the Treasurer and I was the Secretary. The problems we saw were several: previous toxic leadership, infighting among the Brethren, inadequate funds, poor attendance and involvement, lack of direction. Several Brothers from my home lodge joined to help out, but it was too late. That lodge was dead and just hadn't laid down yet. When the Brethren realized the situation, discussions commenced to consolidate, which created further division among the membership. As Secretary, I had to point out that simply surrendering the Charter was not a good idea, which created a whole new argument, based on the lines of, "They (Grand Lodge) can't do that! The (Washington Masonic) Code must be wrong!" Denial, denial, denial... When it came to a vote, Brethren we had not seen in years came to cast a negative ballot. Where were they when the lodge was struggling? How did they help? Two lodges eventually merged to create a new one, strong in membership, and adequately funded. The same situation exists today in another lodge our district, and I have to wonder how long it will be before that lodge too, fades away.
The issues within that lodge wasn’t the brothers that were the home lodge still attempting to keep it afloat, they were pretty much in agreement that a merge had to happen.
The sad part was that after the consolidation the few remaining brothers from that lodge stopped attending their new home. All of the fighting over maintaining a legacy of the old lodge was a waste of time. Ultimately, we ended up with a new name, a new charter, and a big bank account, but none of the old lodge brothers to help or care about the old legacy.
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.
This is a relevant question, and almost feels personal.
In my brief masonic career I have visited several jurisdictions, and many lodges. Most do not have stewards, and some a PM sitting as at least one warden.
One of the landmarks found in my home jurisdiction, is that one lodge may not involve itself in the affairs of another.
Now, let me be clear. A Lodge is not a building, it is the assembly of duly elected and installed BROTHERS, operating under a legitimate charter.
As a plural member I have seen first hand, a healthy, well attended lodge, become empty.
This is the fault of the WM. Not anyone else. He sits with immense authority and responsibility.
However, this is a volunteer organization. And I have no interest in being browbeat or manipulated. As one PM put it, "We pay for this abuse!"
Whether it be your mother lodge, or a Lodge of excellent men. The future of a Lodge resides in the east. And that Man's willingness to not just lead, but foster an environment brothers want to work in.
Nowhere in any of my obligations, did I promise and swear to prop up a fellow lodge. Only a fellow brother, if I can do so, within the length of my cable tow.
It is undeniable that we are in a prolonged season of contraction. We must govern ourselves accordingly. How then, is it wise to wear yourself out?
If a Lodge, no matter how old, cannot maintain a public presence in such a way as to attract new members. Then it is the fault of its own officers. And we, no matter the immense affection, are not obligated to step into their affairs.
good point that we don't have obligations to lodges but to each other.
Related question though: if a lodge is failing and contains a brother who is a member of that one singular lodge, what do you think about helping & assisting that brother to affiliate elsewhere?
Only if he travels to my lodge. Not before would I broach the subject.
Having been one of those brothers that joined a second lodge to try and help them get back on their feet, I can speak from experience. There are a number of obvious warning signs of a dying lodge, this is a big one.
But also demographics can play a big part. Demographics change over time. A local town for example, has gradually changed where the populace became younger, more progressive, affluent, etc and the interest in joining fraternal organizations starts to wane. Perhaps there just isn’t enough men in the local area interested in freemasonry and regardless of any effort on the part of the lodge, there just isn’t people knocking on the door. Then the desire to guard the west gate weakens, and standards slip.
I know of several lodges that should have closed years ago. But the few remaining brothers propping them up are too stubborn or recalcitrant to realize when enough is enough. Even lodges sitting in the same building should just merge and get it over with.
Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate.
The demographic trends are super, super clear; there are fewer masons now than 20 years ago and the future probably looks smaller too. This doesn't have to be a disaster though. It is a massive strategic opportunity to refocus and re-invigorate the craft.
Lodges which fade away and gradually close are really, really bad for the craft. As they lose their critical mass, their members drift out of orbit and have no Masonic home anymore.
We talked about this on a different thread a while ago. If you have a shrinking number of Masons in the same number of lodges, everybody gets spread thin and you end up with 10 struggling lodges instead of 3 healthy ones. When we allow lodges to struggle with no real plan forward, we are bleeding interested masons out of 10 different wounds. The outcome (the eventual shuttering of the lodge) frequently doesn't change in the end.
So if the lodge can't continue to be viable (and in other states we have metrics around this, like the existence of a progressive line with no WM repeats, a candidate pipeline, and so on), unless the WM or district has a super clear plan to reverse that, time & decay will deliver you to the same outcome much as standing on a moving walkway at the airport takes you to the same place no matter what your intentions are.
If it's going to happen it's ultra-important for leadership to accept this and make the best of it. Frequently that takes the form of consolidating two (or more!) lodges into one another.
The consolidation process is brutally difficult; what with monetary issues, loss of lodge identity, people needing to travel to a new place, and a new social group being formed and needing to "gel". I can already hear the brethren yelling "It's not that simple" in the background, and well frankly they're right but it doesn't change facts, it needs to happen.
How? When? Where? I'm not wise enough to know these answers, but I know it's gotta happen. When it doesn't happen, I've seen the results, and they please no one.
Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate.
The reality is that most officers in a Lodge are the few good men. So it is not until the charter is given up that they consider participating in another lodge. Many brothers derive a specific identity from their mother lodge. They're a "Columbia Mason", not just a mason. The social psychology of group dynamics do not change. Our obligations do not change our human nature.
I agree. Lodges continue to use up valuable energy struggling to survive when consolidation would be the best for Masonry. What we have now is a lot of small lodges many working hard to protect the building which I believe is not what Masonry is about. Its not the buildings its us that we should be working to build up. What the community sees is a number of small lodges most in old buildings with poor attendance when it could be one geographically located lodge with more members showing an attractive environment for a new generation of men to join.
When a Lodge becomes distressed, and membership wains, shouldn’t there be a series of reports from DDGMs outlining the reasons why a lodge is declining. Is it due to a single brother who is a poor leader? Is it because the lodge building is in need of repair and the financial health of the lodge, combined with the necessary work that is needed becomes overwhelming for the brothers? Regardless of the reasons, the good hearted efforts of a handful of brothers, typically isn’t going to be enough. If the decline is due to a poor leader, are the “new” brothers going to be able to change the leadership and culture of a lodge before it fails. If it’s due to financial reasons, the minimal amount of dues our lodges charge isn’t going be enough. A lodge in distress or decline should never come as a surprise to GL and if it does, then the question is why? Why hasn’t the DDGM(s) made the situation known. At what point should the GL get involved, to offer counsel and advice, before a lodge loses its charter. Again, this conversation circles around to guarding the West Gate and providing meaningful education and conversations within our lodges. We can have grand Temples (Some do) and plentiful financial resources (Some do) but without meaningful fellowship, no one will stay. A “successful” lodge should guard it’s West Gate well before agreeing to consolidating with a lodge that is closing.
Just as an addict has to WANT to quit before he can, a lodge has to want to survive and grow before it can. As Brother Highland points out, the lodge is the body of men, not the building. The Master wears the Hat and sits in the East for year (maybe longer--more on that), and as such, "Captains" the ship. He is not however, an almighty monarch. The Brethren should be willing and able to coach him, guide him, and let their desires be known. WB Geiss points out a lodge he and I joined to help them in recovery. Brother Geiss was the Treasurer and I was the Secretary. The problems we saw were several: previous toxic leadership, infighting among the Brethren, inadequate funds, poor attendance and involvement, lack of direction. Several Brothers from my home lodge joined to help out, but it was too late. That lodge was dead and just hadn't laid down yet. When the Brethren realized the situation, discussions commenced to consolidate, which created further division among the membership. As Secretary, I had to point out that simply surrendering the Charter was not a good idea, which created a whole new argument, based on the lines of, "They (Grand Lodge) can't do that! The (Washington Masonic) Code must be wrong!" Denial, denial, denial... When it came to a vote, Brethren we had not seen in years came to cast a negative ballot. Where were they when the lodge was struggling? How did they help? Two lodges eventually merged to create a new one, strong in membership, and adequately funded. The same situation exists today in another lodge our district, and I have to wonder how long it will be before that lodge too, fades away.
The issues within that lodge wasn’t the brothers that were the home lodge still attempting to keep it afloat, they were pretty much in agreement that a merge had to happen.
The sad part was that after the consolidation the few remaining brothers from that lodge stopped attending their new home. All of the fighting over maintaining a legacy of the old lodge was a waste of time. Ultimately, we ended up with a new name, a new charter, and a big bank account, but none of the old lodge brothers to help or care about the old legacy.
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!