24 Comments

My dad's Lodge in Clarksburg WV had been the Lodge where the father of T. J. "Stonewall" had been a member, until his dad's death from a communicable disease. Later, in 1968, there were over 1,000 members listed in Hermon Masonic Lodge No. 6. In 2006, there were only 267 members listed in that Lodge. I have copies of those WV Masonic Grand Lodge Blue Books (history books).

Expand full comment

I have to imagine that the experience in a Lodge with 1000+ members would be radically different from the experience we have today.

Expand full comment

How does a person recruit to a lodge that has no activities worth attending? No game nights. No outside of the lodge room guest speakers. No nice dinners. No music and dancing. No crafts. No education. Etc. Short answer... you can't. Might as well fold it up before you go bankrupt.

Expand full comment

I don't disagree. A Lodge that does nothing but a monthly business meeting will not survive. We have some really thriving Lodges in this Jurisdiction, indeed Lodges facing this exact question about how much growth and how fast of growth is too much. I actually got the question from an ongoing Lodge discussion.

But, many Lodges in this Jurisdiction aren't in that place. They are content to do nothing beyond that business meeting. And unless they change, they will not survive.

Expand full comment

I think one question in American masonry that should be addressed is:

How big should a lodge be allowed to get before it splits? Over all, I think more than 100 or 150 members is too many. It would be better to allow lodges to emerge, grow and die according to need.

Expand full comment

I would contend that you should have enough to be fully functional - able to have a full officer line and independently perform the three degrees. My estimate is that beyond 40-50 total Brothers would be challenging to remain personal and strong. Perhaps split at 60.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Multiple lodges would diversify risks of collapse and still keep men close to the officer line. Multiple lodges could support a building.

Expand full comment

>>>Multiple lodges could support a building.

This is an excellent point, and one that I fear is often overlooked in United States Masonry.

1000 member Lodges needed huge buildings, and could support those huge buildings. So we have them, often within a few miles of each other.

We would have been much better off with multiple smaller Lodges sharing a single building, dividing the responsibilities.

Expand full comment

My mother lodge in 1960 had 1100 members. Some lamented that they were down from that number. When you consider that if a lodge had a set of officers, a separate EA, FC, and MM degree team. What would the other 1050 members of the lodge be doing? I contend that they found a place where they could contribute, be active and recognized. They went to York Rite, Scottish Rite and Shrine... away from their overcrowded Blue Lodge.

Expand full comment

A lot of Lodges have a very bad habit of not reaching out to a Brother when he suddenly stops showing up. I have a hunch that habit became such back when Lodges had 1100 members. WIth numbers like that, no one would even notice if a Brother didn't attend.

Expand full comment

I think that makes sense. It can't be so large that it works against the formation of Brotherly friendship ties. Every man needs to feel as if his presence is important and wanted. That he contributes something by being there.

Expand full comment

I agree. 100 is too many men to build strong bonds of Brotherhood. And my hunch is that is one of the reasons that a hundred member Lodge likely only has around 15 or 20 guys consistently showing up.

Because those bonds are critical. We want to spend time with our friends and Brothers. If the Lodge is so large that we aren't really able to make those friendships, what would cause us to return year after year.

Expand full comment

MW Cameron, thanks for bringing this up. I believe that we first need to accurately identify what "seekers" are looking for and what our existing brothers would like in addition to the fellowship. There are good men out there who want what we offer. The challenge is how to we effectively, within the boundaries our tradition, lead them to the West Gate. Social media is critical. We need to develop a model for the Craft. Thanks! Ron Miller, WM Silver Star #286, Battle Ground, WA

Expand full comment

WM Miller.

You hit the nail on the head and finding the “product market fit” can be the hard part when testing market conditions.

I think that by actively promoting the ideals and attributes we seek in our prospective brothers that the membership issue will solve itself. To quote a brother I know, “Our kind of guys” will find their way to us in their searches.

I have spent much of my life, personally and professionally, trying with various degrees of success to find answers to problems. The one constant to the most successful solutions being that time and coordinated effort were applied consistently.

Seekers and builders have a tendency to do those things, relentlessly, if given the time and space to do so. By creating consistent opportunities for this to occur, I firmly believe we will draw in others with similar motivations and intentions.

When growing up I often looked for examples of what to do and be in stories and books that I lacked in my environment while attempting to find “my path” as it were. A fair number of Freemasons made that list, and had a fairly significant impact in my life and decision making processes.

When pursuing higher employment in the not so distant past, I applied the same principles, not without a fair degree of success. I looked for mentors and leaders that represented, or most aligned with, what I wanted to do, or who I wanted to become.

This also led me to pursue Freemasonry and the tenet’s it encourages and the fellowship of those seeking to improve themselves and the world around them.

I think that there are plenty of builders and seekers out there looking to find others doing the same. I think that those brothers and prospects would gravitate towards a place where their efforts could flourish. A place they can create lasting value in their lives, communities, and lodges.

By creating projects that benefit local communities, and the lodges that reside in them. It will natively foster goodwill within each community, and resonate with those possessing the disposition and spirit that Freemasonry requires.

By laying cornerstones in our communities we can secure the foundation of our Fraternities future, and its legacies, for Brethren to experience.

No official advertisement required.

Expand full comment

>>>I looked for mentors and leaders that represented, or most aligned with, what I >>>wanted to do, or who I wanted to become.

I think that wise men tend to do just this. And that knowledge points again to the importance of guarding our West Gate. If a Lodge engages with the community, and the community sees people it would not want to engage with as a part of the Lodge, then that engagement is actually negative. Likewise, if men whom others would want to emulate are seen to be Freemasons, that engagement is positive.

The reputation and usefulness of Freemasonry rests upon each individual, and how he is judge by society at large when he is seen to be a Freemason.

Expand full comment

>>>The challenge is how to we effectively, within the boundaries our tradition, lead them to >>>the West Gate. Social media is critical.

I agree. Indeed Emeth wouldn't even exist if it weren't for social media, as all of my initial subscribers migrated here from my social media accounts. It is much the same for our Lodges.

One problem I do see with Lodge utilization of social media though, in my Jurisdiction (and speaking generally) is a lack of understanding about the need for the Lodge to be on the social media platforms that are most utilized by the men we are seeking to bring into the Craft.

In other words, what is the target age of the men we seek? How does that compare to the average age of a given platform's user base?

So, I think we need to be utilizing the best platforms for our needs. I don't think that many Lodges in my Jurisdiction consider that.

Expand full comment

In it's simplest form, a lodge at a minimum should have one new master mason made that is willing to step into the line. You can have 10 master masons raised in a year, but if none of them want to be part of the leadership, then you're going to end up recycling PMs anyway. All you need is one MM willing (and fit) to lead every year, thus, the line remains fresh and the only time a PM needs to step in is when a brother has to drop out of the line unexpectedly.

But is that a healthy lodge?

When you have 1,000 members, you end up with a waiting list of men who want to eventually become WMs, which is also counterproductive. In addition you'd think that with that many members you'd not have an issue with people helping out, but there can be the issue of everyone assuming someone else will do the work.

Expand full comment

My fear is when a man feels guilted into becoming a part of the line. I've seen that happen with men who, as new Masons, don't feel ready to jump in, but do so out of a sense of obligation. I've not seen it work out well.

So, It does take some discernment in my view to find the men who really want to do it, as opposed to the men who feel an obligation to do it.

Expand full comment

I know, I know... I am an "alien" in this discussion (being Canadian AND being made Mason in Europe) - therefore I am sometimes shocked by what I learn in these conversations.

I like the tradition of UGLE: when a lodge grows too much (i.e. over 60 members if I remember correctly) they tell them to split. No normal person can relate to 4-500 hundred or (horribile dictu) 1,000 "brothers" in a lodge. Most of us can't even remember that many names, LOL

And why is this obsession with having a new WM every year?

There was this guy in Scotland, Andrew Somerville McBride who was, in three "installments", master of his lodge for 21 years altogether. And, just for fun, he also wrote a ritual for it. (You can buy it from the shop of the GL of Scotland...) - But today, all the GL official visits would rate his as a "weak" lodge.

My GL here in Ontario has even workshops and documents about the "officers' progressive line", which I consider a total idiocy (especially, after I was forced to go through it). Although the Book of Constitution says "by merit only", that's just lip service.

Maybe we should rethink this whole "Masonary"(1) thing :)

Expand full comment

There is a lot of discussion among Masons, at least in this jurisdiction, about the evils of the progressive line. While there are some advantages, there are very clearly some drawbacks, and some serious ones as well. A single mason, allowed to advance through the line just because it was his turn, can destroy a lodge very easily. I very much advocate by merit, but the reality is a lot of lodges don't have a lot of choice - they force (as you mention) men to go through the line, regardless of whether he wants to or not, simply because no one else wants to do it.

On the flip side, having one person act as WM for many years can also be a real problem. Lodges can get stuck in ruts and deny new blood with new ideas and suggesting changes to be shot down and excluded. That WM may tend to view the lodge as "his lodge" and have too great an influence on it's members. Cliques can form, and ruin an otherwise great lodge. It's not surprising that the GL viewed that lodge you mentioned as "weak".

Expand full comment

A single poor Master, in a single year can destroy the good work of half a dozen great Masters that came before him and move a Lodge from thriving to struggling within months.

That is, in my view, the fundamental problem of selecting Masters via the line instead of via ability.

Expand full comment

>>>And why is this obsession with having a new WM every year?

I agree. If a man wants to serve, is fit to serve, and the Lodge is thriving under his leadership, it does seem nuts to move him out of the East. Certainly counterproductive.

I tend to think that an aversion to WM's serving multiple terms in a row is problematic, the progressive line is problematic, and the fact that it is difficult to start a new Lodge is problematic. Each of these things could be very easily solved. Indeed two could be solved with nothing more than a change of attitude in my Jurisdiction.

Expand full comment

This Anglo-American notion that a lodge’s officer line must be reorganized every twelve months is outdated. Sure, in 1959 it could be done, and maybe there really was competition for election or appointment to positions, but membership in the U.S. has dropped 80 percent since then, and it’s time to simplify things and slow down. Simplify by reducing responsibilities and hours invested, and slow down by having officers serve longer terms in their positions.

Being a WM would be easier if the Master had fewer meetings to attend and less of a workload.

Jay

Expand full comment

I do tend to believe that we have rules, practices, codes, and bureaucracy perfectly suitable for 1959 Masonry. That are now holding us back as we work to create thriving Masonry in 2025. I've not seen any evidence of Masons effectively working to downsize our codes and bureaucracy in order to meet the needs of today's much smaller craft.

Eventually we will have to slip the chains from our collective necks.

Expand full comment