I've never forgotten the words of a very wise Lodge Secretary, uttered to me a great many years ago. "All you need for an excellent Masonic experience is three committed Masons, in a garage."
The one thing size buys us is cost sharing and that is it. there is a threshold where you find diminished returns. A threshold where a building is necessary, a building becomes large, and a large building becomes a lability. A large temple building with multiple lodges allowed to grow and die would support cost sharing and diversify risk of lodge collapse. A number of lodges with 30 members, meeting every other night may allow the lodge to afford staff, to host food, keep the facilities running etc and ensure that there is activities nightly, should the number of lodges hit a threshold that would allow it. Other organizations could rent the facilities as well the services.
I do think that our Lodges would do very well if they took a good hard look at sharing buildings. Cost sharing.
In my Jurisdiction we own vastly more real estate than we need. We built so many buildings, because when we did so, travel was tough. Bridges hadn't been built, swamps had to be crossed. It was dark at night.
Now we have freeways and fast cars. We don't need all of these buildings, and in many cases, the buildings are destroying the Lodges that own them. So much better to have multiple Lodges utilizing a single facility.
I think the standard outside the US works -- around 40 members. But like you pointed out, not counting those infirmed or out of town is necessary.
I believe that anything over 100 becomes more a subscription attitude, as only so many can be involved anyway. More importantly, do we really want most Brothers to not personally have a connection to most of the other members? It's simply not possible.
>>>do we really want most Brothers to not personally have a connection to most of the other >>>members?
Agreed. If Brotherhood is a vital part of Freemasonry, and I believe it to be indispensable to it, then a Lodge too large to foster those ties between Masons isn't performing one of its vital functions.
A Lodge should be a tight knit group of men, bonded together. Not just a place one goes once or twice a month to make small talk with other men who are barely known outside of that single context.
The basic philosophy of Dunbar's number rings true here; 5 inner circle friends (officers), 15 close friends (active members), 50 good friends (total Lodge membership), 150 acquaintances (Larger District or Jurisdiction connections).
Of course, these can flex 25% or so to match the 20 members you note as active Lodge membership and I would agree. Our last meeting we had 26 or 28 guys in attendance with 5 or 6 visitors that puts us right in that sweet spot of 20ish active members, and we don't currently have Stewards installed so that would bump us another 10%.
It's been really great to see the 'newer' guys starting to take ownership of the functions of our Lodge and now we have more time to help coach and mentor and not do the 'running' of things as well.
Is there a perfect number, I don't think so, but man, 20-30 active Masons with a reserve of another 20 or so sure makes for an enjoyable experience, especially when you are all in general alignment and agreement on most things including a set of guidelines such as; Membership experience, Masonic education, Leadership and management, Beyond the lodge (inside and outside the fraternity), Philanthropy
(different than Charity), and use of Technology
I wrote a treatise of my vision for a well organized lodge a few years ago of what would constitute a healthy lodge.
I have edited it some. Start with a full list of the 14 primary officers.
1.Master
2.Senior warden
3. Junior warden
4. Secretary
5. Treasurer
6. Senior deacon
7. Junior deacon
8. Tyler
9. Chaplain
10. Marshall
11. Musician
12. Senior steward
13. Junior steward
14. And one extra position not codified in ritual. Call it the Lecturer. Or educator, or outreach specialist. The person who is responsible for education programs in the lodge and public outreach beyond the lodge. Who will go to other organizations such as Chambers of commerce, town halls, other fraternities, etc and represent the lodge.
14 backups/understudies for each position if a primary cannot attend a meeting. 14 new trainees to fill the primary posts the following year. 14 previous year primaries in their 'off' year. 14 new masons in their apprentice fellow. Total is 70 masons. Less than 42 is barely surviving and should consider consolidation. More than 98 is getting cumbersome and should consider splitting.
The 14 in their 'off' year and 14 new trainees assumes all 14 officers rotate 'out' instead of into another station or role. And also assuming a progressive line, the next in line would be the understudy, so the number is probably closer to say 50, but I love the idea of a lead and an understudy for roles that are not as frequent; degree positions (all of them), lecturers, installations, funerals and memorials, etc.
I also love the idea of a dedicated person for each area of the Lodge focus. We are working on assigning a lead person for each of those 6 Supports or focus areas for our Lodge so one person isn't burdened with trying to manage all the education, leader development, community and concordant connections, technology and philanthropic activities of the Lodge.
I am opposed to the progressive line. Some men lack talents and each job requires specific talents. They should be filled by qualified men. Not by whose turn it is. Some men are great leaders. Some great entertainers. Some great organizers. Some great cataloguers. Some great financiers. Few are great or even good at all those tasks. Putting a man in a position to which he is unsuitable is a disservice to both the man and the lodge.
I generally agree the progressive line is an "innovation" and should not be automatic.
However, I do feel that a man should be encouraged to try different things and the process of the progressive line, as clunky as it may seem, can manifest new strengths and identify weaknesses.
A major issue with the current progressive line concept is that we expect him to be good at all those things and they usually have to fend for themselves, often without real, actionable support.
I agree in an ideal world, you have perfect men in every position.
Realize though, the opportunity for someone new to show their ability is greatly diminished because no one will ever vote out that perfect officer.
I don't want to sound harsh, but one thing I have noticed is that some of the worst leaders in our Craft seem to have this huge drive to hold leadership positions.
They will go so far as to jump from a Lodge to another Lodge with a hole in the line so that they can again quickly serve in the East. I've seen this happen a number of times through the years.
And the sad part is, in the cases I'm thinking of, these were men with great talents in other areas, that could have been huge assets to Freemasonry, had they only stuck with what they were good at, instead of seeking the East over and over in a number of Lodges.
In all cases, among this group, that has only ended in them eventually being deposed from the East by the GM, or in suspension from the Craft.
Whenever three or more are gathered in your name ..............
I've never forgotten the words of a very wise Lodge Secretary, uttered to me a great many years ago. "All you need for an excellent Masonic experience is three committed Masons, in a garage."
There's a lot of truth to that.
The one thing size buys us is cost sharing and that is it. there is a threshold where you find diminished returns. A threshold where a building is necessary, a building becomes large, and a large building becomes a lability. A large temple building with multiple lodges allowed to grow and die would support cost sharing and diversify risk of lodge collapse. A number of lodges with 30 members, meeting every other night may allow the lodge to afford staff, to host food, keep the facilities running etc and ensure that there is activities nightly, should the number of lodges hit a threshold that would allow it. Other organizations could rent the facilities as well the services.
I do think that our Lodges would do very well if they took a good hard look at sharing buildings. Cost sharing.
In my Jurisdiction we own vastly more real estate than we need. We built so many buildings, because when we did so, travel was tough. Bridges hadn't been built, swamps had to be crossed. It was dark at night.
Now we have freeways and fast cars. We don't need all of these buildings, and in many cases, the buildings are destroying the Lodges that own them. So much better to have multiple Lodges utilizing a single facility.
I think the standard outside the US works -- around 40 members. But like you pointed out, not counting those infirmed or out of town is necessary.
I believe that anything over 100 becomes more a subscription attitude, as only so many can be involved anyway. More importantly, do we really want most Brothers to not personally have a connection to most of the other members? It's simply not possible.
>>>do we really want most Brothers to not personally have a connection to most of the other >>>members?
Agreed. If Brotherhood is a vital part of Freemasonry, and I believe it to be indispensable to it, then a Lodge too large to foster those ties between Masons isn't performing one of its vital functions.
A Lodge should be a tight knit group of men, bonded together. Not just a place one goes once or twice a month to make small talk with other men who are barely known outside of that single context.
The basic philosophy of Dunbar's number rings true here; 5 inner circle friends (officers), 15 close friends (active members), 50 good friends (total Lodge membership), 150 acquaintances (Larger District or Jurisdiction connections).
Of course, these can flex 25% or so to match the 20 members you note as active Lodge membership and I would agree. Our last meeting we had 26 or 28 guys in attendance with 5 or 6 visitors that puts us right in that sweet spot of 20ish active members, and we don't currently have Stewards installed so that would bump us another 10%.
It's been really great to see the 'newer' guys starting to take ownership of the functions of our Lodge and now we have more time to help coach and mentor and not do the 'running' of things as well.
Is there a perfect number, I don't think so, but man, 20-30 active Masons with a reserve of another 20 or so sure makes for an enjoyable experience, especially when you are all in general alignment and agreement on most things including a set of guidelines such as; Membership experience, Masonic education, Leadership and management, Beyond the lodge (inside and outside the fraternity), Philanthropy (different than Charity), and use of Technology
>>>man, 20-30 active Masons with a reserve of another 20 or so sure makes for an >>>enjoyable experience
I think that is about right.
Too few and it is too much work for everyone. Too many, and Brotherhood can't grow.
Twenty some seems good. With enough new Masons on a consistent basis so that the Lodge always has men able to step into leadership.
I wrote a treatise of my vision for a well organized lodge a few years ago of what would constitute a healthy lodge.
I have edited it some. Start with a full list of the 14 primary officers.
1.Master
2.Senior warden
3. Junior warden
4. Secretary
5. Treasurer
6. Senior deacon
7. Junior deacon
8. Tyler
9. Chaplain
10. Marshall
11. Musician
12. Senior steward
13. Junior steward
14. And one extra position not codified in ritual. Call it the Lecturer. Or educator, or outreach specialist. The person who is responsible for education programs in the lodge and public outreach beyond the lodge. Who will go to other organizations such as Chambers of commerce, town halls, other fraternities, etc and represent the lodge.
14 backups/understudies for each position if a primary cannot attend a meeting. 14 new trainees to fill the primary posts the following year. 14 previous year primaries in their 'off' year. 14 new masons in their apprentice fellow. Total is 70 masons. Less than 42 is barely surviving and should consider consolidation. More than 98 is getting cumbersome and should consider splitting.
That's an interesting plan, I like it.
Do you have it written or formalized in any way?
The 14 in their 'off' year and 14 new trainees assumes all 14 officers rotate 'out' instead of into another station or role. And also assuming a progressive line, the next in line would be the understudy, so the number is probably closer to say 50, but I love the idea of a lead and an understudy for roles that are not as frequent; degree positions (all of them), lecturers, installations, funerals and memorials, etc.
I also love the idea of a dedicated person for each area of the Lodge focus. We are working on assigning a lead person for each of those 6 Supports or focus areas for our Lodge so one person isn't burdened with trying to manage all the education, leader development, community and concordant connections, technology and philanthropic activities of the Lodge.
I am opposed to the progressive line. Some men lack talents and each job requires specific talents. They should be filled by qualified men. Not by whose turn it is. Some men are great leaders. Some great entertainers. Some great organizers. Some great cataloguers. Some great financiers. Few are great or even good at all those tasks. Putting a man in a position to which he is unsuitable is a disservice to both the man and the lodge.
Yes. I have it all written up. Email me at Icymudpuppy@yahoo.com and I'll send you a copy
I generally agree the progressive line is an "innovation" and should not be automatic.
However, I do feel that a man should be encouraged to try different things and the process of the progressive line, as clunky as it may seem, can manifest new strengths and identify weaknesses.
A major issue with the current progressive line concept is that we expect him to be good at all those things and they usually have to fend for themselves, often without real, actionable support.
I agree in an ideal world, you have perfect men in every position.
Realize though, the opportunity for someone new to show their ability is greatly diminished because no one will ever vote out that perfect officer.
I don't want to sound harsh, but one thing I have noticed is that some of the worst leaders in our Craft seem to have this huge drive to hold leadership positions.
They will go so far as to jump from a Lodge to another Lodge with a hole in the line so that they can again quickly serve in the East. I've seen this happen a number of times through the years.
And the sad part is, in the cases I'm thinking of, these were men with great talents in other areas, that could have been huge assets to Freemasonry, had they only stuck with what they were good at, instead of seeking the East over and over in a number of Lodges.
In all cases, among this group, that has only ended in them eventually being deposed from the East by the GM, or in suspension from the Craft.