Lewis County Lodge No. 1
A thought experiment
As every Mason in the United States knows, our membership numbers have dramatically diminished since the 1950’s. This of course has meant that a great many Lodges have had to close their doors.
Now in fairness, Lodges have always ‘gone out of business’ so to speak. This isn’t a new thing. Indeed one of the founding Lodges of my own Grand Jurisdiction had to close its doors shortly after it helped create our Grand Lodge.
But, the closing of Lodges has certainly accelerated since then.
And most often, when a Lodge must close, it don’t just close up shop, rather it will merge with a nearby Lodge. Two become one.
In my experience, sometimes when this happens, a weak Lodge will merge into a strong Lodge.
More often, again in my experience, two weak Lodges will merge together.
It seems to me that this merger of two weak Lodges almost never results in a strong Lodge. The weakness remains.
But, just as a thought experiment, I’ve been wondering recently, what if two strong Lodges decided to merge with each other?
Before the members of my Lodge have a heart attack, let me be clear, I’m not advocating for this. Simply thinking what the possible results could be, and using our Lodge as an example in order to ponder the question.
I might be forgetting one, but I believe that in my County, Lewis County, we used to have seven Lodges. We now have two. Both are very strong with good prospects for the future.
My own Lodge is Centralia Lodge. We own a big, beautiful Masonic Temple, with commercial tenants on two floors. We are financially stable, with significant investments. And we attract younger men seeking to become Masons.
That’s a lot on the positive side of the ledger, certainly enough to keep us going well into the future.
But, that big, beautiful Masonic Temple is much larger than we need, and I often wonder how we will be able to keep it up in the years and decades to come. Inflation certainly rises faster than our income.
The other Lodge in my County is Robert Morris Lodge. They have a small Masonic Temple, right sized for the Lodges of today, and while it is not an income producing property, it is extremely inexpensive for them to own and operate. Robert Morris is also financially stable, and also holds very significant investments. It is an extremely well led Lodge, and has been for a very long time, with a solid and committed membership.
As with my Lodge, that’s a lot on the positive side of the ledger.
But, also as with my Lodge, there is a bit of a dark cloud out there. The Lodge is located deeply into a rural area, and as a result, doesn’t seem to attract younger men seeking to become Masons.
So, there we have it. Two really strong Lodges, but each with a potential problem on the horizon.
An eventual membership problem for one, and an unaffordable building for the other.
Now of course both of these problems could resolve on their own. Robert Morris could see an upsurge in interest from young men. Centralia could manage to increase its income at a faster rate than inflation. Maybe those things will happen, maybe not.
But, as of today, these are both really strong Lodges.
I can’t help but wonder, what would happen if we merged them together?
Sell that big beautiful Masonic Temple, generating a vast endowment to ensure that the merged Lodge would remain financially stable forever.
Pull younger men from the urban part of our county into the rural part, ensuring membership growth at the merged Lodge.
Merging two weak Lodges together seems to result in a single weak Lodge. I’ve got to wonder, what would happen if two strong Lodges were merged together? Would the ability to take the best from both not result in something much stronger than otherwise?
I don’t know.
What do you think?
I see a valuable idea here. Worth exploring but I see too many personality conflicts for it to happen. Robert Morris will become weak through old age attrition. I believe I am their youngest member and I haven't attended lodge in years.
Saving Masonry I hope, is at the heart of all considerations when we consider our lodges. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with some lodges.
I am a plural member in three blue lodges at the moment. One lodge holds a festive board and meets 6 times a year in a building that we don't own. As a matter of fact, we don't even pay rent. The cost of the meal, paid for by the brethren each meeting, covers the rental cost of the hall.
In another lodge, we are financially solvent with good investments but we pay a big rent each month. Our returns on the investments cover that rent, and then some extra, but it's a big monthly expense.
Another lodge that I just joined, rents the Seattle Valley Scottish rite building, which is a relatively small rent.
Of the three, the lodge that rents in the Scottish Rite in the most vibrant. The significant others are at every meeting night. They entertain themselves in the dining hall with games, dancing, and a dinner. It has the largest attendance of any lodge I have ever visited and the brethren are all very engaged and excited to be part of the Masonic family.
The lodge with the high rental expense, used to own a building. They sold it a number of years back due to the age and condition of the building, as they couldn't afford the upkeep. The current place we rent is ok, not perfect, but it is a nice facility.
A number of months ago, one brother introduced the idea of buying a piece of land, or an existing property, and becoming an owner and landlord for renters, where we could have more control over our building but also bring in revenue. Our current lease is up in 2026 and as we don't have a building yet, we started to explore the options of a meeting space to hold us over while we seek the right place for us.
We have approached a few lodges in the area about renting from them. One of which was initially interested at first, but then change their mind. The reason? Some members go scared. They have a small number of Masons who attend regularly. We have a decent amount who attend our meetings. They were worried that our lodge was "stronger" than theirs and thought we might end up attracting more members than they would, in that same area, and as a result, "take over" their lodge and building. (They own their building).
That sentiment brings to light a concern and consideration for mergers. This of course was your original subject on merging lodges.
In my experience, although we are all Masons, each lodge has its own distinct characteristics and the members are attracted to, and stay, for that special bond they feel. Mergers can mess with that identity of a lodge and as a result, can create potential problems.
Here is what I suggest. If the distance and the dues do not place undue stress or load on a Mason, why not become a plural member? Your financial and masonic contributions help to strengthen the lodge while allowing it to keep its identity.
At some point lodges will continue to decline and society today does not produce the kind of adults that will support our lodges. We will all face mergers or closures altogether.