I agree. I see it in more than just one organization. Every civic fraternity has this problem. Its a bigger problem when it is tied in to historic real estate. It really is a tragedy when a bad lodge is occupying a historically significant building. Particularly one with unique and beautiful architecture or of special local significance to community. But such buildings are better off preserved by a unaffiliated business or government body than left to deteriorate under a bad lodge's mismanagement.
I agree wholeheartedly, it is terrible when a Lodge allows a beautiful building to be destroyed due to negligence and lack of care.
But, what I find especially sad is when a private individual buys one of these supposed 'white elephants' and turns it into a thriving financial concern. Something that a Lodge could have easily done, had they simply hired some professional help.
Not far from my home is an old, massive, and beautiful Elks Lodge. The Elks couldn't keep it going and let it all go to hell. A husband and wife bought it, and now it's a hotel, has two restaurants, event and retail space. It must be making loads of money, because recently they bought the building right next door as well.
We need a system whereby Lodges must prove that they are capable of doing the work at least once a year in order to keep their Charter active.
Ultimately, we can't rely upon members of a dying Lodge to do the responsible thing and pull the plug. The Craft as a whole needs to do it, in order to protect itself. Alas though, that will require some changes to the way we normally operate, at least here in Washington.
This might be overly simplistic, but it seems to me that when it comes down to it, Masonic Lodges exist to create Masons. So that is probably what should be measured. Can they Open and Close? Can they confer a proper Degree? Can they properly mentor candidates through the Degrees? Can they move a new Mason from EA to Proficient MM? Can they hold a new MM for a year, five years? I think that those things can be measured.
I loved your comparison you shared. And it's perfectly accurate. As always, you seem to take my thoughts and present them better then I ever could! Thank you for sharing this.
Another analogy: Imagine if a doctor wouldn't remove bad tissue and just kept treating it. This is a darker, but possibly more apt analogy when conclusions are drawn.
At some point we have to see it as a question of standards, and not see each Lodge as sacred to the point of preservation for its own sake. When it stops being sacred, it stops being a Lodge and we need to admit this happens.
When I say "sacred", by the way, this isn't about numbers. If a Lodge doesn't have the manpower to open, there's a stronger issue here,, or one that went on far too long.
Outsiders looking in can easily conclude that both the failing Lodge and our Fraternity are better off if the filing Lodge turns out the lights. But failing lodges populated by boiling frogs might not see the obvious. Yes, they've forgotten much of the ritual and they don't bother with programs, but they enjoy their own brand of fellowship and decide that they're having a good time. They get to tell themselves and others that they're Masons, and that's pretty cool because Masons are good men because they're Masons because they're good men because they're Masons (lather, rinse, repeat). They may also feel a loyalty to their mother lodge, even if their mother lodge isn't full functional.
The fix is difficult. If Grand Lodge imposes a solution the Brothers in the failing Lodge will almost certainly resent what they experience as the heavy hand, and then a fire storm of Masonic Gossip will likely follow. That might even be worse than the bad first impressions that failing lodges make on new members because Masonic Gossip occupies too much space in the minds of other Masons whose energies would be better applied to sustaining the health of their own lodges.
Maybe the best we can do is to educate all about the ingredients of a healthy functioning lodge and encourage District Deputies or Special Deputies to provide candid counsel, in the most friendly manner.
You are certainly correct about the dangers of Masonic Gossip. It does seem that whenever Grand Lodge attempts to help, or takes action, it is viewed as somehow picking on a Lodge or its members. And that does spread.
Best case scenario is if the Lodge seeks assistance before things are too far gone. I think that works well, and everyone can feel good about it. Perhaps if there was a way to better encourage that?
Close the Taco Time! The first fast-food restaurant in our city that has been there for over 100 years? That generations of men have taken their sons to? Blasphemy! True, I don’t buy tacos there, but I enjoy seeing it on my way to Muchas Gracias…
One issue with comparing Lodges with Taco Time is that the franchise has metrics to ensure its mandate is measured and quality delivered. I suspect Taco Time would hear from their district manager if they lost taco sales, even if they sold the most pizzas in the area.
The mandate for a Blue Lodge is to give new candidates the time and experience to fall in love with the Craft. To find that special connection with our Degrees and history that is unique to each of us. To dig that well of love that one draws from when they go out of their way to support a fellow Brother or Lodge. Further, to continually provide an engaging Masonic experience that keeps Brothers working on a better version of themselves.
Taco Time should be known for Tacos, and Masonic Lodges should be known for making and retaining Masons.
The solution is twofold:
Measure competency: Require Lodges to certify in the ritual. An annual certification showing they can open and close Lodge on all the Degrees, and certifying on a specific Degree, which is good for three years. (A new Degree each year.)
Measure engagement: Require Lodges to take attendance, noting legitimate absences for distance or difficulty.
While I’m not suggesting a Lodge should have its Charter revoked if they fail to meet expectations, it would quantify their ability or failure to attain the goals of a Lodge. However many great things a Lodge may or may not be doing, these two metrics would show the reality of their success.
Many other fraternal organizations give great sums to charity, create entertaining events, and provide opportunities for fellowship. Masonic Lodges are the only organizations that promote Masonry. In short, we need to make sure we’re selling the most Tacos and leave the pizza to others.
I'm my experience the Grand Lodge and district deputies sometimes even though they are well meaning completely miss the signs of a failing Lodge and the signs of very poor leadership. At the end of the day a Lodge is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Based on my own time in Masonic leadership, I'll say that DDGM's are in a position to see failing Lodges in their area. Some might not see it, but they are in a position to see it.
Grand Lodge itself isn't in a position to see it, in either of its iterations. By that I mean that when in Session, Grand Lodge is the collective body of every Master & Wardens of every Lodge, plus their PM's. As a whole they aren't in a position to see any specific Lodge. When out of Session, the Grand Master is the Grand Lodge. He as well doesn't have clear vision, because when he is visiting a Lodge, that Lodge will of course be at its best. The only way the GM can get a truly clear picture is if someone talks with him, either the DDGM or another interested Mason.
I agree with both of your proposed measurements, they would serve as good barometers of Lodge health.
But both would require change. The first would require change at the Grand Lodge level in order to require that Lodges do prove proficiency.
The second at the Lodge level, by the Lodge communicating to its members that they are requested and expected to attend. In my experience, very few Lodges set that expectation for their members. Although I think that they should. What good are 100 Freemasons who haven't set foot in Lodge in decades?
Yeah, I was going to say, I almost got killed by a Taco Bell when I was in Toppenish, as collateral Damage. You don't even have to eat the stuff; all you have to do is be in the same car as someone who had recently visited a Taco Bell to be hoping the car's windows do roll down!
Funny you mention demolition man, one of my favorite movies. The overseas version claimed Pizza Hut won the franchise wars, instead of Taco Bell. While I understand the fact that there are overseas Pizza Hut restaurants, it just didn’t carry the same weight of TB.
I went into a taco time once. Confusing menu. Look, I want three crispy shell supreme gringo tacos, with a side of nacho chips and a soda. And the most important ingredient, Diablo sauce. I don’t need no stinkin tater tots. No street tacos with your little tortillas and lime wedges. Screw that. Gringo tacos are what I grew up with and you can’t mess with perfection.
Now what you need is a little corn tortilla, with goat, roasted over a fire in its own juices, a wee bit of onion and cilantro, with some lime juice sprinkled on top. That's a fine Taco!
I agree fully with your assessment. It's ok for a Lodge to die. This is a part of the natural cycle of life. In order to save a Lodge there must be a viable solution otherwise it is in vain and truly a dishonor to our fraternity. The same is true in regards to saving a failing brother who is a disgrace to himself and our ancient fraternity. I have seen one unethical Brother damn near completely destroy a lodge until a higher authority stepped in to intervene.
It is a fact in Freemasonry that Grand Lodges often don't act until the damage has been done. Partly this is because of a lack of clear vision of what is actually happening within a Lodge, but it is also partly because of the nature of our Institution. We all want to see all Masons succeed. We wish the very best for each other. That's a very good thing, but it does tend to perhaps blind us a little bit as well.
I find your post, Ryan to be quite ironic. It very well might be YOUR fault that the Lodge you mention still exists since you are/were the fifth elected Officer which saved the Lodge. You may also be one of the Brothers who save/kill the Lodge and to make it whatever you want it to be. No hard feelings on my part whatever you choose to do or not do. You did what you thought was right as I did. I stepped up as WM when no one else would. I added 3 Plural Members which hadn't happened in a long time. Be well where ever you Masonic Journey takes you.
I agree. I see it in more than just one organization. Every civic fraternity has this problem. Its a bigger problem when it is tied in to historic real estate. It really is a tragedy when a bad lodge is occupying a historically significant building. Particularly one with unique and beautiful architecture or of special local significance to community. But such buildings are better off preserved by a unaffiliated business or government body than left to deteriorate under a bad lodge's mismanagement.
I agree wholeheartedly, it is terrible when a Lodge allows a beautiful building to be destroyed due to negligence and lack of care.
But, what I find especially sad is when a private individual buys one of these supposed 'white elephants' and turns it into a thriving financial concern. Something that a Lodge could have easily done, had they simply hired some professional help.
Not far from my home is an old, massive, and beautiful Elks Lodge. The Elks couldn't keep it going and let it all go to hell. A husband and wife bought it, and now it's a hotel, has two restaurants, event and retail space. It must be making loads of money, because recently they bought the building right next door as well.
Not so easy if the remaining active members don’t see a problem, and insist that scraping by one more year will lead to sunshine and rainbows.
You need a 3/4 vote at two Lodges to merge.
That’s pretty easy for a few Brothers to defeat if they prefer the status quo.
True.
We need a system whereby Lodges must prove that they are capable of doing the work at least once a year in order to keep their Charter active.
Ultimately, we can't rely upon members of a dying Lodge to do the responsible thing and pull the plug. The Craft as a whole needs to do it, in order to protect itself. Alas though, that will require some changes to the way we normally operate, at least here in Washington.
But what does “capable of doing the work” mean?
- ritual
- engaging meetings
- engagement outside Lodge
- transparent and competent financial reporting
- adequate maintenance of buildings and other property
- education of new Masons
- etc
How much weight on each of these categories?
Can we measure this objectively?
This might be overly simplistic, but it seems to me that when it comes down to it, Masonic Lodges exist to create Masons. So that is probably what should be measured. Can they Open and Close? Can they confer a proper Degree? Can they properly mentor candidates through the Degrees? Can they move a new Mason from EA to Proficient MM? Can they hold a new MM for a year, five years? I think that those things can be measured.
I loved your comparison you shared. And it's perfectly accurate. As always, you seem to take my thoughts and present them better then I ever could! Thank you for sharing this.
I am with you Micheal, I have thought about this on more than one occasion, but never could articulate it like MW Cameron has.
Thank you Brother.
Thank you Brother, but I can take no credit. The analogy was gleefully stolen from a superb Mason up in Seattle.
Another analogy: Imagine if a doctor wouldn't remove bad tissue and just kept treating it. This is a darker, but possibly more apt analogy when conclusions are drawn.
At some point we have to see it as a question of standards, and not see each Lodge as sacred to the point of preservation for its own sake. When it stops being sacred, it stops being a Lodge and we need to admit this happens.
When I say "sacred", by the way, this isn't about numbers. If a Lodge doesn't have the manpower to open, there's a stronger issue here,, or one that went on far too long.
Your point is well taken. By the time a Lodge gets to the point that it can't Open, it has been functionally dead for a long time.
Outsiders looking in can easily conclude that both the failing Lodge and our Fraternity are better off if the filing Lodge turns out the lights. But failing lodges populated by boiling frogs might not see the obvious. Yes, they've forgotten much of the ritual and they don't bother with programs, but they enjoy their own brand of fellowship and decide that they're having a good time. They get to tell themselves and others that they're Masons, and that's pretty cool because Masons are good men because they're Masons because they're good men because they're Masons (lather, rinse, repeat). They may also feel a loyalty to their mother lodge, even if their mother lodge isn't full functional.
The fix is difficult. If Grand Lodge imposes a solution the Brothers in the failing Lodge will almost certainly resent what they experience as the heavy hand, and then a fire storm of Masonic Gossip will likely follow. That might even be worse than the bad first impressions that failing lodges make on new members because Masonic Gossip occupies too much space in the minds of other Masons whose energies would be better applied to sustaining the health of their own lodges.
Maybe the best we can do is to educate all about the ingredients of a healthy functioning lodge and encourage District Deputies or Special Deputies to provide candid counsel, in the most friendly manner.
You are certainly correct about the dangers of Masonic Gossip. It does seem that whenever Grand Lodge attempts to help, or takes action, it is viewed as somehow picking on a Lodge or its members. And that does spread.
Best case scenario is if the Lodge seeks assistance before things are too far gone. I think that works well, and everyone can feel good about it. Perhaps if there was a way to better encourage that?
Close the Taco Time! The first fast-food restaurant in our city that has been there for over 100 years? That generations of men have taken their sons to? Blasphemy! True, I don’t buy tacos there, but I enjoy seeing it on my way to Muchas Gracias…
One issue with comparing Lodges with Taco Time is that the franchise has metrics to ensure its mandate is measured and quality delivered. I suspect Taco Time would hear from their district manager if they lost taco sales, even if they sold the most pizzas in the area.
The mandate for a Blue Lodge is to give new candidates the time and experience to fall in love with the Craft. To find that special connection with our Degrees and history that is unique to each of us. To dig that well of love that one draws from when they go out of their way to support a fellow Brother or Lodge. Further, to continually provide an engaging Masonic experience that keeps Brothers working on a better version of themselves.
Taco Time should be known for Tacos, and Masonic Lodges should be known for making and retaining Masons.
The solution is twofold:
Measure competency: Require Lodges to certify in the ritual. An annual certification showing they can open and close Lodge on all the Degrees, and certifying on a specific Degree, which is good for three years. (A new Degree each year.)
Measure engagement: Require Lodges to take attendance, noting legitimate absences for distance or difficulty.
While I’m not suggesting a Lodge should have its Charter revoked if they fail to meet expectations, it would quantify their ability or failure to attain the goals of a Lodge. However many great things a Lodge may or may not be doing, these two metrics would show the reality of their success.
Many other fraternal organizations give great sums to charity, create entertaining events, and provide opportunities for fellowship. Masonic Lodges are the only organizations that promote Masonry. In short, we need to make sure we’re selling the most Tacos and leave the pizza to others.
Excellent WB Will.
I'm my experience the Grand Lodge and district deputies sometimes even though they are well meaning completely miss the signs of a failing Lodge and the signs of very poor leadership. At the end of the day a Lodge is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Based on my own time in Masonic leadership, I'll say that DDGM's are in a position to see failing Lodges in their area. Some might not see it, but they are in a position to see it.
Grand Lodge itself isn't in a position to see it, in either of its iterations. By that I mean that when in Session, Grand Lodge is the collective body of every Master & Wardens of every Lodge, plus their PM's. As a whole they aren't in a position to see any specific Lodge. When out of Session, the Grand Master is the Grand Lodge. He as well doesn't have clear vision, because when he is visiting a Lodge, that Lodge will of course be at its best. The only way the GM can get a truly clear picture is if someone talks with him, either the DDGM or another interested Mason.
I agree with both of your proposed measurements, they would serve as good barometers of Lodge health.
But both would require change. The first would require change at the Grand Lodge level in order to require that Lodges do prove proficiency.
The second at the Lodge level, by the Lodge communicating to its members that they are requested and expected to attend. In my experience, very few Lodges set that expectation for their members. Although I think that they should. What good are 100 Freemasons who haven't set foot in Lodge in decades?
I agree 100% with everything in the article. Well, except I’m a taco bell man myself.
I think in Demolition Man, Taco Bell won the Franchise Wars.
Do you need an intervention too W Brother?
Taco Bell will kill ya!
Yeah, I was going to say, I almost got killed by a Taco Bell when I was in Toppenish, as collateral Damage. You don't even have to eat the stuff; all you have to do is be in the same car as someone who had recently visited a Taco Bell to be hoping the car's windows do roll down!
Funny you mention demolition man, one of my favorite movies. The overseas version claimed Pizza Hut won the franchise wars, instead of Taco Bell. While I understand the fact that there are overseas Pizza Hut restaurants, it just didn’t carry the same weight of TB.
I went into a taco time once. Confusing menu. Look, I want three crispy shell supreme gringo tacos, with a side of nacho chips and a soda. And the most important ingredient, Diablo sauce. I don’t need no stinkin tater tots. No street tacos with your little tortillas and lime wedges. Screw that. Gringo tacos are what I grew up with and you can’t mess with perfection.
Now what you need is a little corn tortilla, with goat, roasted over a fire in its own juices, a wee bit of onion and cilantro, with some lime juice sprinkled on top. That's a fine Taco!
W. Glenn:
While I have always trusted your judgement, in the past, and am proud to call you a friend, I fear that we must schedule an intervention.
Friends don't let friends eat Taco Bell.
Well, unless said friends are really drunk and it's midnight or some such.
I second that, MWB Cameron.
There's a reason why they call it "Taco Hell."
But, if they were to make a Spam Taco, well that would change things!
I agree fully with your assessment. It's ok for a Lodge to die. This is a part of the natural cycle of life. In order to save a Lodge there must be a viable solution otherwise it is in vain and truly a dishonor to our fraternity. The same is true in regards to saving a failing brother who is a disgrace to himself and our ancient fraternity. I have seen one unethical Brother damn near completely destroy a lodge until a higher authority stepped in to intervene.
It is a fact in Freemasonry that Grand Lodges often don't act until the damage has been done. Partly this is because of a lack of clear vision of what is actually happening within a Lodge, but it is also partly because of the nature of our Institution. We all want to see all Masons succeed. We wish the very best for each other. That's a very good thing, but it does tend to perhaps blind us a little bit as well.
I find your post, Ryan to be quite ironic. It very well might be YOUR fault that the Lodge you mention still exists since you are/were the fifth elected Officer which saved the Lodge. You may also be one of the Brothers who save/kill the Lodge and to make it whatever you want it to be. No hard feelings on my part whatever you choose to do or not do. You did what you thought was right as I did. I stepped up as WM when no one else would. I added 3 Plural Members which hadn't happened in a long time. Be well where ever you Masonic Journey takes you.