What's more important
A Mason's money or his time?
One of the most active and involved Freemasons I know is Cameron Adamson, whom I like to think of as Canadian Cameron. When I write that he is one of the most active and involved Freemasons I know, I don’t mean within my Jurisdiction, or in my little corner of the earth. I mean, in the world. Canadian Cameron is seemingly everywhere, working constantly for the betterment of Masonry.
Here’s the thing. He’s pissed off. He’s really, really pissed off.
As someone who loves a good rant, I’ll just say that he’s posted quite the rant! You can find it here.
Listening to his rant, he makes a point that is I think very important for us to consider.
He rightly points out that if a Mason doesn’t pay his Lodge dues for a year or two, we will remove him from the Craft for non payment of dues. He can’t consider himself a Mason in good standing anymore.
But, if a Mason doesn’t bother to show up for a Lodge meeting for ten or twenty years, but still pays his dues, he’s still considered a Mason in good standing, able to claim all the goodwill, rights, and benefits of the Lodge.
He rightly questions:
Do we really value a man’s dues money more highly than his time?
Would we really rather that a man pay his dues than come to Lodge?
Why is it OK to make a demand on a Brother’s money, but not OK to make a demand on his time?
If we claim his time is most important, as Canadian Cameron points out our actions declare otherwise. And he didn’t say it, but I will, talk is cheap.
That brings forth a question to my mind.
Should we require that a Mason maintain a minimum attendance record in order to remain in good standing?
Just as we require a Mason to pay his dues in order to remain in good standing.
Before we get lost in minutia while pondering those questions, I will point out that our Craft makes provisions to cancel dues for those Brothers who can not afford to pay their dues. In like manner our Craft could make provision for those Brothers who can not attend Lodge for some legitimate reason.
I’m curious about what you think.
Should we require that a Mason maintain a minimum attendance record in order to remain in good standing?
Let’s discuss it in the comments below…
When I became a Mason I joined the Shrine. I was amazed that I knew so many of them from my work world. I had no idea they were Masons. What I found most interesting was the push for new memberships, that came from the Blue Lodge, from the men that I had never seen in lodge. I became a believer that if you were going to join a concordant body, then you needed to attend your Blue Lodge a certain percentage of time.
There have been natural disasters around the world that I wished to be of help. I did not have the time to go there in person and dig out rubble or hand out water. But my dollars were there for me.
If we make provision for those who can't afford dues, shouldn't we make provision for those who don't have time, but may have the financial means to contribute to the work?
I've visited many Brothers to give out 50-year Aprons, or even 60-year, etc.. More than one broke down in tears that they have been a "bad Mason" and don't deserve it because they had to work second shift most of their lives and almost never attended Lodge. I told them that the Mason's work is what he does with his life -- his family, his job, his community -- by contributing our principles to society.
Then I know Masons who go to every Communication and event, but outside of Lodge, wonder if they have been of any benefit to the world, or if they have done fair dealings.
I will never judge a man for where he is, only what he does, and how he does it.