If the target is students, existing college fraternities would suffice. Most students don't have the availability to immerse themselves in the lodge and leave for careers. It creates a high turnover.
I don't have any experience with it, as Washington hasn't done that. But, if memory serves, UGLE does?
We do though have two Lodges very close to a massive military base, both of which attract many military members. Both Lodges thrive, and have a continual influx of great men, but both face a unique challenge in that those Masons get transfered regularly and often. This creates a form of instability not faced by most of our Lodges, but of course is very good for Masonry as a whole.
I presume that Lodges on a campus would face a very similar challenge. But that challenge certainly doesn't mean that it wouldn't be beneficial.
MWPGM Bailey, often a very large number of members in a Lodge find it difficult to attend on the designated evening of the week. Maybe about 1/4th would ask to form a new Lodge, that would meet on a different evening?
Certainly true. I remember quite a few years ago my Lodge discussed possibly changing its meeting night. It was certainly impossible to find any night of the month that worked well for all of the men of the Lodge. We ended up leaving it as is, since we could find nothing better.
A few years ago, a friend from Canada, a Mason, was in area helping with a Microsoft event. I invited him to attend a lodge meeting at Myrtle lodge, my home lodge at that time.
Myrtle does a session called Shrink the Lodge. Everyone comes down and forms a circle of chairs and engage in open discussion about a topic chosen for the night. Esoteric, Masonic, morality, etc. are all topics.
My friend was so impressed by the engagement and how the session went, that he later got in touch and asked if we could have a conference call with Bill Werner and some of his lodge members. He, and few others in their lodge, were looking for more from Masonry than what they were getting at their current lodge.
When we got on the conference call, he stated that what he experienced that night, was what he thought Masonry was all about and that a lodge should include some like Shrink the Lodge in their regular stated meetings.
Over the next few months, using the input and guidance from Bill, they wove that into their new lodge that they started under dispensation. The members of their old lodge were divided and many did not want to change what they were doing.
The new lodge, Cornerstone Lodge, is now thriving and many have joined because of what they do in the lodge.
So, there could be circumstances where a new lodge can help rekindle interest and perhaps, help grow the craft.
I've been able to participate in Myrtle's 'shrink the lodge' on a couple of different occasions, and agree that it is a superb program as practiced there.
But, I've not felt that it would work as well, or as successfully in all Lodges. So, it makes a lot of sense to me that the Mason you mention would have found it necessary to band together with others who wanted it as a part of their Lodge experience, and create a new Lodge around it. A few who are against doing something can certainly throw a monkey wrench into things.
I'm really glad to hear about the success of Cornerstone Lodge!
I believe in many instances it is probably easier to form a new lodge with like minded brothers. While there are administrative hurdles, having a committed group of brothers could clear those hurdles.
I believe that some lodges are dying because of the lodges core values. They are not willing to accept new ideas and they keep recycling the same leadership with the same ideas. They also do not actively, or maybe unintentionally, recruit the right people because the right people are not within their sphere of influence. If a new man joins he quickly becomes disheartened and moves on.
Having a group of brothers who want to create a lodge that is vital and draws new candidates would probably have the same people within their spheres of influence and they would be able to retain new members because they are doing interesting things.
The new lodge would always have to be on guard to ensure they do not fall into the same traps as the old dying lodge.
>>>I believe that some lodges are dying because of the lodges core values.
I think that you are undoubtedly correct. It seems to me that sometimes we can get so involved with and absorbed by administrative, building, and similar things that we can tend to forget about Freemasonry's core values. Replacing them with administrative or building values. Not because we want to I imagine, but simply because they are immediate and large, so tend to crowd out the actual practice of gentler Freemasonic values.
MW, I believe two approaches will be necessary for the survival of our fraternity. In many jurisdictions, rural lodges are dying with their dying communities. For instance, In Oklahoma we are projected to lose 60 rural lodges in the next 5 years. If we are going to have Masonry in the hinterlands of Oklahoma, it is essential that the small lodges get together with a consolidation plan to join the most active and viable lodge in their area. If possible, we need to end up with at least one viable lodge in each Masonic district. It has already been proven that men will drive an hour for a really good lodge experience.
Second, we need to develop a mindset of creating new lodges in our metro areas, with each being made up of like minded men. These are known the world over as Affinity lodges. They create the kind of Masonic experience they want to have. And their social conversations are of quality because they share the same occupations or interests as a part of their freemasonry.
Here in Washington, our rural Lodges are the ones I worry the most about, for the exact reasons you mention. While we have large urban areas around the Puget Sound, most of our State is extremely rural.
Many years ago, there was a single Lodge about an hour and a half from my home, over on the Pacific Coast. It's next nearest Lodge is probably my own, again, about an hour and a half drive, over a really windy and dark small highway.
That area used to have three or four Lodges, but it was down to just that one. Those Lodges died when the logging and fishing industries severely contracted and young people moved away for better opportunities.
Then we lost that single remaining Lodge. Now there is this vast geographic area in our State where Masonry simply doesn't exist, and is likely too far to drive to find.
All of this is on my mind again, because our mutual friend Ken Lane recently received a call from a man living in that area who would like to become a Freemason. I'm left wondering, where on earth do we direct this fellow? To my Lodge, which would require long drives over (in winter) quite treacherous roads, at night? To the next closest Lodge, with much better driving conditions, but an even longer drive?
And I just imagine that these 'masonic dead zones' will continue to become more prevalent and larger in size, as our State continues to urbanize and more formerly vibrant tiny towns dry up for lack of industry.
In any event, this post was of course inspired by what I'm told was a comment you made on your recent trip to Seattle, but I didn't attribute it to you because I heard it third hand, so am unsure how accurate it was.
I'm sorry that I missed you while you were here, unfortunately my schedule had me over in the woods of the Olympic Peninsula.
MW Brother, I had the pleasure of seeing Brother Andrew Hammer speak a while back when I had just entered the Craft. The topic of his discussion was similar to the one you now write about.
It has been one of the larger points of consideration I have struggled with in my short time in Masonry, and has led to a couple of our conversations on how to achieve revitalization, or to support the Lodges we know and love.
I am torn because I miss the days where you fixed something when it broke, until it absolutely couldn’t be repaired any further. My household had many a skinny knife that was likely beyond its service life, out of necessity, and later frugality.
The challenge is that most I’ve met no longer think this way, nor desire to entertain it, in or out of the Craft. Content to let things be and move on. It saddens me, but unless we give those Brothers a reason to have hope in our institutions and Temples, including them in our planning and efforts. I think it is a trend that will likely continue.
I do think those who desire to do or engage more, will do one of two things, move on or diversify their efforts. Unfortunately we are more likely to hear of those moving on, “at least until something changes”, in the words of some of the Brethren I have had conversations with. Though I think sometimes we forget that change often requires doing something different or new.
We must realize that if we fail to offer the substance our Brethren seek, they may find it or build it elsewhere. Then we must either decide that is an acceptable loss and dig in on finding more of those who share our interests, or find ways to include those Brothers in our existing Lodges.
I don’t think many Lodges can afford to lose their existing members without finding new ones to replace them. I would also hope those Brothers would be willing to share their thoughts before disappearing into the night to give their Brethren an opportunity to correct or chart new courses. Whispering counsel in our Brethren’s ears to give them the ability to choose the path ahead, rather than making it for them.
I think any new Lodges established will eventually share the same challenges that our existing ones have too, if we fail to address the root issues. If not this season, then the next. I think the benefit of a new Lodge is that it can show what is possible, and can help to revitalize existing Lodges by example, if we are wiling to see it.
The part I fear is that when any of our Lodges close, who will carry forth all the history and tribal knowledge that was cultivated in these Hallowed spaces? How do we ensure that we do not lose the very things current and future Seekers, seek?
One phrase I heard often during my time in service rings in my head on repeat, “Adapt or die”. If we fail to increase our efforts to include our Brethren, or increase our membership with those of similar interests, I fear we will fail to meet that requirement.
We have to be willing to have open, honest, and vulnerable conversations lest we fail to meet the challenges of the future.
You are absolutely correct. Unless we are willing to honestly look at our Lodge so that we can see where it is failing, and have open and honest conversations about those failures, we will never be able to address them. But, far too often, it is easier to ignore problems.
There was a Lodge, when I was a fairly new Mason, that was just about the most unfriendly place I'd ever been in my life. The men wouldn't talk to anyone new. To the point of going out of their way, physically moving so as to not have to talk with anyone new. It was, frankly, horrible. I know, because I was one of those new guys.
I remember, at some point, we did sit down as a group to discuss the Lodge. I worked up the courage and told them how they behaved, and how that behavior drove people away. They were all pretty horrified, as they were all good guys, and didn't really realize how they were acting around new people.
That night a plan was hatched to ensure that the Lodge welcomed every new visitor, prospect, or whomever, in such a way as to make them feel welcome, wanted, and encourage them to return.
It's been a lot of years since then, and the problem hasn't returned.
But, this is actually a more common problem than I think we realize. I've seen other Lodges that act just like that one used to do. Scottish Rite Valleys too.
I am part of a start up lodge. There are a few opportunities and challenges. In a start up, you must be dedicated to being an active participant in it for it to blossom, grow and succeed. It is challenging to purchase all the accoutrements to create the lodge and pay rent when you begin with nothing- it can be an expensive proposition. An advantage is that you don't possess history that some members may cling to, so you are free to create a specific lodge purpose / focus. A challenge is that you have to bring in new candidates and grow.
I think those challenges you mention are probably what is keeping some men from starting new. It’s far easier to start new if you can afford it. It s vastly more difficult to change an existing lodges course to oblivion.
Some Lodges do seem set on a course to self destruction, and set so strongly that they won't veer from it no matter what is done or said. It's a sad thing to see.
The financial challenges you mention certainly seem like they would make things hard. A new Lodge would want to provide a great experience, and that of course means having good stuff, and a good location in which to meet. Both of which cost.
And then, I assume it is a race towards critical mass. Attract enough men to where the Lodge can sustain itself before it burns out in the attempt. Undoubtedly it can be done, as your Lodge and others have proven, but I imagine it is more challenging than those of us who haven't done it would imagine.
What are thoughts and experiences in starting lodges on college campuses?
If the target is students, existing college fraternities would suffice. Most students don't have the availability to immerse themselves in the lodge and leave for careers. It creates a high turnover.
Same thing happens in frats
I don't have any experience with it, as Washington hasn't done that. But, if memory serves, UGLE does?
We do though have two Lodges very close to a massive military base, both of which attract many military members. Both Lodges thrive, and have a continual influx of great men, but both face a unique challenge in that those Masons get transfered regularly and often. This creates a form of instability not faced by most of our Lodges, but of course is very good for Masonry as a whole.
I presume that Lodges on a campus would face a very similar challenge. But that challenge certainly doesn't mean that it wouldn't be beneficial.
One of the opportunities that we have with men who transfer to another jurisdiction is assisting them to find a new lodge.
Agreed. I fear a quite often missed opportunity.
MWPGM Bailey, often a very large number of members in a Lodge find it difficult to attend on the designated evening of the week. Maybe about 1/4th would ask to form a new Lodge, that would meet on a different evening?
Certainly true. I remember quite a few years ago my Lodge discussed possibly changing its meeting night. It was certainly impossible to find any night of the month that worked well for all of the men of the Lodge. We ended up leaving it as is, since we could find nothing better.
A few years ago, a friend from Canada, a Mason, was in area helping with a Microsoft event. I invited him to attend a lodge meeting at Myrtle lodge, my home lodge at that time.
Myrtle does a session called Shrink the Lodge. Everyone comes down and forms a circle of chairs and engage in open discussion about a topic chosen for the night. Esoteric, Masonic, morality, etc. are all topics.
My friend was so impressed by the engagement and how the session went, that he later got in touch and asked if we could have a conference call with Bill Werner and some of his lodge members. He, and few others in their lodge, were looking for more from Masonry than what they were getting at their current lodge.
When we got on the conference call, he stated that what he experienced that night, was what he thought Masonry was all about and that a lodge should include some like Shrink the Lodge in their regular stated meetings.
Over the next few months, using the input and guidance from Bill, they wove that into their new lodge that they started under dispensation. The members of their old lodge were divided and many did not want to change what they were doing.
The new lodge, Cornerstone Lodge, is now thriving and many have joined because of what they do in the lodge.
So, there could be circumstances where a new lodge can help rekindle interest and perhaps, help grow the craft.
I've been able to participate in Myrtle's 'shrink the lodge' on a couple of different occasions, and agree that it is a superb program as practiced there.
But, I've not felt that it would work as well, or as successfully in all Lodges. So, it makes a lot of sense to me that the Mason you mention would have found it necessary to band together with others who wanted it as a part of their Lodge experience, and create a new Lodge around it. A few who are against doing something can certainly throw a monkey wrench into things.
I'm really glad to hear about the success of Cornerstone Lodge!
I believe in many instances it is probably easier to form a new lodge with like minded brothers. While there are administrative hurdles, having a committed group of brothers could clear those hurdles.
I believe that some lodges are dying because of the lodges core values. They are not willing to accept new ideas and they keep recycling the same leadership with the same ideas. They also do not actively, or maybe unintentionally, recruit the right people because the right people are not within their sphere of influence. If a new man joins he quickly becomes disheartened and moves on.
Having a group of brothers who want to create a lodge that is vital and draws new candidates would probably have the same people within their spheres of influence and they would be able to retain new members because they are doing interesting things.
The new lodge would always have to be on guard to ensure they do not fall into the same traps as the old dying lodge.
>>>I believe that some lodges are dying because of the lodges core values.
I think that you are undoubtedly correct. It seems to me that sometimes we can get so involved with and absorbed by administrative, building, and similar things that we can tend to forget about Freemasonry's core values. Replacing them with administrative or building values. Not because we want to I imagine, but simply because they are immediate and large, so tend to crowd out the actual practice of gentler Freemasonic values.
MW, I believe two approaches will be necessary for the survival of our fraternity. In many jurisdictions, rural lodges are dying with their dying communities. For instance, In Oklahoma we are projected to lose 60 rural lodges in the next 5 years. If we are going to have Masonry in the hinterlands of Oklahoma, it is essential that the small lodges get together with a consolidation plan to join the most active and viable lodge in their area. If possible, we need to end up with at least one viable lodge in each Masonic district. It has already been proven that men will drive an hour for a really good lodge experience.
Second, we need to develop a mindset of creating new lodges in our metro areas, with each being made up of like minded men. These are known the world over as Affinity lodges. They create the kind of Masonic experience they want to have. And their social conversations are of quality because they share the same occupations or interests as a part of their freemasonry.
MW Brother:
Here in Washington, our rural Lodges are the ones I worry the most about, for the exact reasons you mention. While we have large urban areas around the Puget Sound, most of our State is extremely rural.
Many years ago, there was a single Lodge about an hour and a half from my home, over on the Pacific Coast. It's next nearest Lodge is probably my own, again, about an hour and a half drive, over a really windy and dark small highway.
That area used to have three or four Lodges, but it was down to just that one. Those Lodges died when the logging and fishing industries severely contracted and young people moved away for better opportunities.
Then we lost that single remaining Lodge. Now there is this vast geographic area in our State where Masonry simply doesn't exist, and is likely too far to drive to find.
All of this is on my mind again, because our mutual friend Ken Lane recently received a call from a man living in that area who would like to become a Freemason. I'm left wondering, where on earth do we direct this fellow? To my Lodge, which would require long drives over (in winter) quite treacherous roads, at night? To the next closest Lodge, with much better driving conditions, but an even longer drive?
And I just imagine that these 'masonic dead zones' will continue to become more prevalent and larger in size, as our State continues to urbanize and more formerly vibrant tiny towns dry up for lack of industry.
In any event, this post was of course inspired by what I'm told was a comment you made on your recent trip to Seattle, but I didn't attribute it to you because I heard it third hand, so am unsure how accurate it was.
I'm sorry that I missed you while you were here, unfortunately my schedule had me over in the woods of the Olympic Peninsula.
MW Brother, I had the pleasure of seeing Brother Andrew Hammer speak a while back when I had just entered the Craft. The topic of his discussion was similar to the one you now write about.
It has been one of the larger points of consideration I have struggled with in my short time in Masonry, and has led to a couple of our conversations on how to achieve revitalization, or to support the Lodges we know and love.
I am torn because I miss the days where you fixed something when it broke, until it absolutely couldn’t be repaired any further. My household had many a skinny knife that was likely beyond its service life, out of necessity, and later frugality.
The challenge is that most I’ve met no longer think this way, nor desire to entertain it, in or out of the Craft. Content to let things be and move on. It saddens me, but unless we give those Brothers a reason to have hope in our institutions and Temples, including them in our planning and efforts. I think it is a trend that will likely continue.
I do think those who desire to do or engage more, will do one of two things, move on or diversify their efforts. Unfortunately we are more likely to hear of those moving on, “at least until something changes”, in the words of some of the Brethren I have had conversations with. Though I think sometimes we forget that change often requires doing something different or new.
We must realize that if we fail to offer the substance our Brethren seek, they may find it or build it elsewhere. Then we must either decide that is an acceptable loss and dig in on finding more of those who share our interests, or find ways to include those Brothers in our existing Lodges.
I don’t think many Lodges can afford to lose their existing members without finding new ones to replace them. I would also hope those Brothers would be willing to share their thoughts before disappearing into the night to give their Brethren an opportunity to correct or chart new courses. Whispering counsel in our Brethren’s ears to give them the ability to choose the path ahead, rather than making it for them.
I think any new Lodges established will eventually share the same challenges that our existing ones have too, if we fail to address the root issues. If not this season, then the next. I think the benefit of a new Lodge is that it can show what is possible, and can help to revitalize existing Lodges by example, if we are wiling to see it.
The part I fear is that when any of our Lodges close, who will carry forth all the history and tribal knowledge that was cultivated in these Hallowed spaces? How do we ensure that we do not lose the very things current and future Seekers, seek?
One phrase I heard often during my time in service rings in my head on repeat, “Adapt or die”. If we fail to increase our efforts to include our Brethren, or increase our membership with those of similar interests, I fear we will fail to meet that requirement.
We have to be willing to have open, honest, and vulnerable conversations lest we fail to meet the challenges of the future.
You are absolutely correct. Unless we are willing to honestly look at our Lodge so that we can see where it is failing, and have open and honest conversations about those failures, we will never be able to address them. But, far too often, it is easier to ignore problems.
There was a Lodge, when I was a fairly new Mason, that was just about the most unfriendly place I'd ever been in my life. The men wouldn't talk to anyone new. To the point of going out of their way, physically moving so as to not have to talk with anyone new. It was, frankly, horrible. I know, because I was one of those new guys.
I remember, at some point, we did sit down as a group to discuss the Lodge. I worked up the courage and told them how they behaved, and how that behavior drove people away. They were all pretty horrified, as they were all good guys, and didn't really realize how they were acting around new people.
That night a plan was hatched to ensure that the Lodge welcomed every new visitor, prospect, or whomever, in such a way as to make them feel welcome, wanted, and encourage them to return.
It's been a lot of years since then, and the problem hasn't returned.
But, this is actually a more common problem than I think we realize. I've seen other Lodges that act just like that one used to do. Scottish Rite Valleys too.
I am part of a start up lodge. There are a few opportunities and challenges. In a start up, you must be dedicated to being an active participant in it for it to blossom, grow and succeed. It is challenging to purchase all the accoutrements to create the lodge and pay rent when you begin with nothing- it can be an expensive proposition. An advantage is that you don't possess history that some members may cling to, so you are free to create a specific lodge purpose / focus. A challenge is that you have to bring in new candidates and grow.
I think those challenges you mention are probably what is keeping some men from starting new. It’s far easier to start new if you can afford it. It s vastly more difficult to change an existing lodges course to oblivion.
Some Lodges do seem set on a course to self destruction, and set so strongly that they won't veer from it no matter what is done or said. It's a sad thing to see.
The financial challenges you mention certainly seem like they would make things hard. A new Lodge would want to provide a great experience, and that of course means having good stuff, and a good location in which to meet. Both of which cost.
And then, I assume it is a race towards critical mass. Attract enough men to where the Lodge can sustain itself before it burns out in the attempt. Undoubtedly it can be done, as your Lodge and others have proven, but I imagine it is more challenging than those of us who haven't done it would imagine.
All true. But Greek fraternities pale in comparison to a craft lodge. How about all the DeMolay on campuses?