What obligations does a Lodge have to its members who have grown too old or become too sick to be able to attend meetings and other events?
What should we, as active Lodge members do for these Brothers?
Turning it around, since we may well be in that position ourselves someday, what do we hope the active members of our Lodge will do for us when we are too old and too sick to attend meetings and other Lodge events?
The first of what I hope will be many Emeth Sunday Evening Virtual Gatherings will take place this upcoming Sunday. Those with a paid subscription to Emeth should receive an invitation via email at 9:00AM today. If you don’t please just let me know.
If you want to join in, please upgrade to a paid subscription before Sunday evening, I’ll get the details to you.
This will be the first Emeth live event for paid subscribers, but not the only one, and not the only type of event. I’m also planning live Reddit style AMA (Ask Me Anything) threads, and a multi day Emeth gathering in a traditional vacation destination, the first to be held in 2022. Beyond that, who knows what else we can do! I’m open to all kinds of ideas as we build this new kind of space for Masonic education and fellowship together. Got something you’d like to see? Just let me know!
This is a tough question because it can hurt feelings. Upon initiation we are told that masonry may not accept fools, young men in nonage or old men in dotage. Some old world and east coast jurisdictions also deny membership to those with physical disabilities. The reasoning of course is to be sure the candidate can perform the labors of masonry. Historically the craftsmen must be capable of lifting the stones and tools in the quarry and intelligent enough for learning the mathematics of drafting and architecture to create the cuts and angles for a sound structure "without the use of mortar". Today the physical aspects are less important but being able to perform the ritual is still necessary. The mental aspects however are more important with the body of knowledge a mason is expected to memorize. When a mason reaches an age where his ability to participate in ritual work is compromised and therefore would present a lesser experience for candidates, the lodge should be wise enough not to elect him to office. If he has become senile enough to blackball a good candidate it might be best not to allow him to ballot.. if he is not able to make his way to observe a meeting whether because he cannot drive or cannot walk up the stairs etc, the obligation the others have is to continue Fellowship outside the lodge. The problem that I see isn't that our elderly masons might not make regular meetings but that most lodges these days have no fellowship outside of lodge. Instead of bringing a man to lodge, the master should take the brethren to him for food, fellowship, and the charity we talk about but rarely activate. The business of lodge is best done by men with ambition at their peak with ideas to attract new candidates. Too often that ambition is crushed by the immovable stagnation of men who have reached dotage but don't have the sense and haven't been told to step down. Jeff Bezos recently stepped down from the ceo position at Amazon. The last founding member to hold leadership. He knew he was out of ideas and it was time to allow new leadership to ensure the company keeps innovating. I have built in an automatic removal system for myself as head of the corporation I founded. I won't have to be told to leave. My retirement is a certainty upon the acquisition of any 1 of 3 benchmarks. Of the three the one I hope to achieve first is the growth of the company to a point where my annual retirement dispersement for the remainder of my life based on share ownership at separation would exceed my annual active salary.
You are exactly correct that if we want to see our Lodges thrive, then we must get our collective butts out of the Lodge room in order to build true fellowship and friendship between the men of the Lodge. I do not know why so many Lodges, and Lodge members are resistant to doing things like this. It just seems odd to me, most especially because one can look at those Lodges that do get out of the Lodge, and see the tremendous success they have.
This kind of thing needs to happen at the Grand Lodge level too. For our Brothers jurisdiction wide. Hopefully I'm able to make some good progress on that front.
You mention:
"The business of lodge is best done by men with ambition at their peak with ideas to attract new candidates."
I think that is what most concerns me about the progressive line system that Lodges seem to have adopted for no particular reason.
I don't understand why a Lodge would use this system, knowing full well that as a result of it the Lodge will, at least sometimes, be led by a man much less capable of that leadership than a man sitting on the sidelines.
We are going to need to get to a point where Lodges elect the best man to lead the Lodge into the East, not the fellow who's turn it is.
And it is in no way required by the Code or anything else. It is just a bad Lodge tradition that somehow infected our Fraternity (at least here in the Jurisdiction of Washington, and I believe throughout the US, but I know it doesn't exist everywhere in the world) on a massive scale.
I think we would see tremendous improvement if we could begin convincing Lodges to elect the most suitable man to the East, instead of the man who's turn it is.
I've actually thought about this quite a bit. Belonging to an old and relatively large lodge, but being a fairly new MM, it's difficult. Out of all of the members of the lodge, I've probably met 20% of the actual members. A few years ago we had a past master's night, and we had 19 PMs show up - of which I had met five of them before.
There are many reasons why masons stop attending lodge. Some just can't do the travelling. Some moved out of state. Some haven't attended lodge in quite a few years, and are a little too embarrassed to show back up.
But it's also a generational issue. Because I haven't met or interacted with a lot of these brothers, and I haven't seen any effort on their part to partake in the fellowship the lodge has to offer, then frankly I'm not going to invade their privacy. The older members of the lodge that do know these brothers should be keeping in touch.
I look at it much like I look at my personal dealings with people in general I do know and care about. If I am the one that always has to reach out to someone to check up on them, or to just say hi, if they aren't bothering to check up on me, then my concerns tend to wane a bit. I've even had close relatives that would only call me when they needed some technical help, like I am a free version of the geek squad. It may sound callous, but friendship and brotherhood is a two way street. Sort of like unrequited love. Eventually you just give up as you're just seemingly wasting your time.
I've mentioned this before, but both the lodge and the brothers have an obligation to each other.
Undoubtedly you are right, fellowship has to be a two way street. Lodge rosters are filled with the names of men who haven't been seen for years, and it is hard to feel responsible to continually reach out to these men, when it is all one sided.
I think though that it is different when an active Mason has his health badly decline.
As I write this I'm thinking of a member of Centralia Lodge who was active for a great many years. He'd never miss one of our meetings, and equally importantly, he always seemed game to join in when we had an idea to do something beyond our Lodge.
It might have been a mighty scary trip the time we talked him into going to Skykomish Lodge to get the Rail Road Degree, and he insisted on doing the driving, but alas, that near death experience is a story for another day.
My point is that he was an active and involved Mason, who's health declined, but who wanted to remain active and involved.
In the end, we would pick him up from the nursing home, drive him to our, or another local Lodge, and return him after. We did the same with visiting, usually in small groups.
We were only able to do this though, because he remained healthy enough to leave the care facility with us. Some people aren't.
I am thinking that this is where virtual platforms can come in to play.
If we are able to have these members join our meetings over virtual platform, I think that would bring, for at least a little while, some sense of normalcy and happiness to their lives that wasn't possible before. Plus, we of course, would get to continue enjoying their fellowship.
I think that in those situations, that can be a win/win. I also think, given that it is now so easy to accomplish through technology, it can be considered a Lodge responsibility. I fear that those Lodges that have thus far refused to adapt to technology during the current pandemic will lack a tool that will become important for this situation in the not distant future.
But again, as you point out, it is a two way street.
If the man in question isn't like the member of our Lodge talked about above, then such an endeavor would not work for him, or for the Lodge.
Certainly a man who does not participate while he is able, may well likely regret that fact when he is no longer able.
As I close though, I'd just like to mention that we can never truly know how much value another man places on being a Mason. I learned this important lesson when I served as Master of my Lodge.
I received a call from a funeral home one day, saying that one of our members had passed away, and that his instructions had requested a Masonic service. I had never met the man, so I asked the 'old timers' in our Lodge. It seemed that none of them knew him either. Clearly it had been decades and decades since he had sat in our Lodge.
Nevertheless, we put together a funeral team, and we did our best to give our Brother a fitting memorial service.
Some time later, I received another call, this time from a bank. It seems that the Brother in question ended his life quite wealthy, and he left enough money to the Lodge that properly invested, will ensure its existence forever.
It is clear from his tremendous gift to the Lodge that he very highly valued Freemasonry, and the fact that he was a Freemason. This despite the fact that he apparently never sought to be active within the Lodge.
It's not a position that I can really understand, because for me fellowship is a tremendously important part of Freemasonry, but for him the importance of Freemasonry must have been somewhere else.
This is a tough question because it can hurt feelings. Upon initiation we are told that masonry may not accept fools, young men in nonage or old men in dotage. Some old world and east coast jurisdictions also deny membership to those with physical disabilities. The reasoning of course is to be sure the candidate can perform the labors of masonry. Historically the craftsmen must be capable of lifting the stones and tools in the quarry and intelligent enough for learning the mathematics of drafting and architecture to create the cuts and angles for a sound structure "without the use of mortar". Today the physical aspects are less important but being able to perform the ritual is still necessary. The mental aspects however are more important with the body of knowledge a mason is expected to memorize. When a mason reaches an age where his ability to participate in ritual work is compromised and therefore would present a lesser experience for candidates, the lodge should be wise enough not to elect him to office. If he has become senile enough to blackball a good candidate it might be best not to allow him to ballot.. if he is not able to make his way to observe a meeting whether because he cannot drive or cannot walk up the stairs etc, the obligation the others have is to continue Fellowship outside the lodge. The problem that I see isn't that our elderly masons might not make regular meetings but that most lodges these days have no fellowship outside of lodge. Instead of bringing a man to lodge, the master should take the brethren to him for food, fellowship, and the charity we talk about but rarely activate. The business of lodge is best done by men with ambition at their peak with ideas to attract new candidates. Too often that ambition is crushed by the immovable stagnation of men who have reached dotage but don't have the sense and haven't been told to step down. Jeff Bezos recently stepped down from the ceo position at Amazon. The last founding member to hold leadership. He knew he was out of ideas and it was time to allow new leadership to ensure the company keeps innovating. I have built in an automatic removal system for myself as head of the corporation I founded. I won't have to be told to leave. My retirement is a certainty upon the acquisition of any 1 of 3 benchmarks. Of the three the one I hope to achieve first is the growth of the company to a point where my annual retirement dispersement for the remainder of my life based on share ownership at separation would exceed my annual active salary.
You are exactly correct that if we want to see our Lodges thrive, then we must get our collective butts out of the Lodge room in order to build true fellowship and friendship between the men of the Lodge. I do not know why so many Lodges, and Lodge members are resistant to doing things like this. It just seems odd to me, most especially because one can look at those Lodges that do get out of the Lodge, and see the tremendous success they have.
This kind of thing needs to happen at the Grand Lodge level too. For our Brothers jurisdiction wide. Hopefully I'm able to make some good progress on that front.
You mention:
"The business of lodge is best done by men with ambition at their peak with ideas to attract new candidates."
I think that is what most concerns me about the progressive line system that Lodges seem to have adopted for no particular reason.
I don't understand why a Lodge would use this system, knowing full well that as a result of it the Lodge will, at least sometimes, be led by a man much less capable of that leadership than a man sitting on the sidelines.
We are going to need to get to a point where Lodges elect the best man to lead the Lodge into the East, not the fellow who's turn it is.
Progressive line really is a dumb idea. Some men just aren't cut out for certain positions.
Agreed.
And it is in no way required by the Code or anything else. It is just a bad Lodge tradition that somehow infected our Fraternity (at least here in the Jurisdiction of Washington, and I believe throughout the US, but I know it doesn't exist everywhere in the world) on a massive scale.
I think we would see tremendous improvement if we could begin convincing Lodges to elect the most suitable man to the East, instead of the man who's turn it is.
I've actually thought about this quite a bit. Belonging to an old and relatively large lodge, but being a fairly new MM, it's difficult. Out of all of the members of the lodge, I've probably met 20% of the actual members. A few years ago we had a past master's night, and we had 19 PMs show up - of which I had met five of them before.
There are many reasons why masons stop attending lodge. Some just can't do the travelling. Some moved out of state. Some haven't attended lodge in quite a few years, and are a little too embarrassed to show back up.
But it's also a generational issue. Because I haven't met or interacted with a lot of these brothers, and I haven't seen any effort on their part to partake in the fellowship the lodge has to offer, then frankly I'm not going to invade their privacy. The older members of the lodge that do know these brothers should be keeping in touch.
I look at it much like I look at my personal dealings with people in general I do know and care about. If I am the one that always has to reach out to someone to check up on them, or to just say hi, if they aren't bothering to check up on me, then my concerns tend to wane a bit. I've even had close relatives that would only call me when they needed some technical help, like I am a free version of the geek squad. It may sound callous, but friendship and brotherhood is a two way street. Sort of like unrequited love. Eventually you just give up as you're just seemingly wasting your time.
I've mentioned this before, but both the lodge and the brothers have an obligation to each other.
Undoubtedly you are right, fellowship has to be a two way street. Lodge rosters are filled with the names of men who haven't been seen for years, and it is hard to feel responsible to continually reach out to these men, when it is all one sided.
I think though that it is different when an active Mason has his health badly decline.
As I write this I'm thinking of a member of Centralia Lodge who was active for a great many years. He'd never miss one of our meetings, and equally importantly, he always seemed game to join in when we had an idea to do something beyond our Lodge.
It might have been a mighty scary trip the time we talked him into going to Skykomish Lodge to get the Rail Road Degree, and he insisted on doing the driving, but alas, that near death experience is a story for another day.
My point is that he was an active and involved Mason, who's health declined, but who wanted to remain active and involved.
In the end, we would pick him up from the nursing home, drive him to our, or another local Lodge, and return him after. We did the same with visiting, usually in small groups.
We were only able to do this though, because he remained healthy enough to leave the care facility with us. Some people aren't.
I am thinking that this is where virtual platforms can come in to play.
If we are able to have these members join our meetings over virtual platform, I think that would bring, for at least a little while, some sense of normalcy and happiness to their lives that wasn't possible before. Plus, we of course, would get to continue enjoying their fellowship.
I think that in those situations, that can be a win/win. I also think, given that it is now so easy to accomplish through technology, it can be considered a Lodge responsibility. I fear that those Lodges that have thus far refused to adapt to technology during the current pandemic will lack a tool that will become important for this situation in the not distant future.
But again, as you point out, it is a two way street.
If the man in question isn't like the member of our Lodge talked about above, then such an endeavor would not work for him, or for the Lodge.
Certainly a man who does not participate while he is able, may well likely regret that fact when he is no longer able.
As I close though, I'd just like to mention that we can never truly know how much value another man places on being a Mason. I learned this important lesson when I served as Master of my Lodge.
I received a call from a funeral home one day, saying that one of our members had passed away, and that his instructions had requested a Masonic service. I had never met the man, so I asked the 'old timers' in our Lodge. It seemed that none of them knew him either. Clearly it had been decades and decades since he had sat in our Lodge.
Nevertheless, we put together a funeral team, and we did our best to give our Brother a fitting memorial service.
Some time later, I received another call, this time from a bank. It seems that the Brother in question ended his life quite wealthy, and he left enough money to the Lodge that properly invested, will ensure its existence forever.
It is clear from his tremendous gift to the Lodge that he very highly valued Freemasonry, and the fact that he was a Freemason. This despite the fact that he apparently never sought to be active within the Lodge.
It's not a position that I can really understand, because for me fellowship is a tremendously important part of Freemasonry, but for him the importance of Freemasonry must have been somewhere else.