LARGE LODGES
by A. G. Pitts
THE AMERICAN FREEMASON - JULY
1911
The Grand Master of Minnesota, Brother William B.
Patton, last year spent a great deal of time and effort to
collect some statistics of an unusual hind relative to the
Lodges of that jurisdiction. These statistics are interesting,
but they proved very little profitable to the Grand Master
himself, Although figures do not lie, they speak a foreign
language to most people, and need an interpreter that they may
be understood. The Grand Master commented in part as
follows: In considering these figures, one fact seems to
stand out very strongly, and that is that our large Lodges, as
compared with the smaller organizations, are not effective
Masonic instrumentalities. Much as we may pride ourselves on
having, in the jurisdiction, or personally belonging to Lodges
of commanding numerical strength, we must not shut our eyes
to the problems which they create. When we realize that over 20
per cent of the Masons of Minnesota belong to 3.2 - 10 per cent
of the Lodges, and that these same Lodges make over 20 per cent
of the brothers added to our ranks each year, it certainly
becomes a matter of importance to inquire if these bodies
represent the best possible conditions for doing Masonic work,
and if their work is well-tried, true and trusty. These
Lodges are situated in our large cities, where they are able to
surround themselves with every facility for making their
meetings attractive, and where the members have convenient means
of transportation; and yet, withal, the average attendance,
including visitors, is only equal to 8.2 - 10 per cent of the
resident membership, and in one instance is as low as 2.6 - 10
per cent. When it comes to paying the last sad honors to the
body of a departed brother, a duty which should appeal with
peculiar force to all members of the fraternity, one Lodge
reports an average attendance equal to 2 6 - 10 per cent of its
resident membership, and the average for the whole of the Lodges
in Class V, as before stated, is but 5 3 - 10 per cent. When we
add to these facts the further information that but one Lodge
makes any attempt to regularly introduce social features into
the meetings, and thus have the brethren so related, in fact
as well as in name, and when but one Lodge, and that the one
before mentioned, makes even an occasional attempt at
enlightening its membership in matters Masonic, other than
the ritual, it certainly gives us cause to doubt, if in the
large increases in their membership, they are not adding mere
members, rather than Masons. Brother Patton is a member
of Palestine Lodge of Duluth, one of the large Lodges which he
condemns, being the second largest Lodge in Minnesota. That is
all that we know about him. But we are just as sure as if we had
the evidence before us that he is, and is known as, a strong
supporter of some higher degree body; that his interest is there
rather than in the Lodge. We should like to bet with anyone that
knows no more about the facts than we, that he is a 33d
degree man, or something of that exalted sort. Why do we
say this? Because it is well known that size and strength are
just as useful to a Lodge as to a Consistory; that the large and
strong body will control the many small and weak ones. Therefore
when we see a man advocating a course which will make the Lodges
weaker and the higher bodies relatively stronger, we have our
suspicions, and when we find him using arguments specious rather
than sound, we conclude that he himself knows perfectly well
that he is laboring to get the Lodges to act against their own
interests, and in the interests of other Masonic bodies, the
rivals and competitors of the Lodges. "These Lodges are
situated in the large cities," he says, "where they are able to
surround themselves with every facility for making their
meetings attractive." That sentence alone stamps the whole
argument as far-sought and far-fetched. For any candid observer,
instituting a comparison between large Lodges and small, would
be sure to write a sentence something like this: "The large
Lodges are situated in our large cities, where alone they come
into competition with the Scottish Rite bodies and the Shrine,
which invariably deprive the Lodges of two-thirds of their
strength, not only by monopolizing the time and the energy of
many of the most active workers, but also by conflicting with
the Lodges in prestige, in social activities, in attractiveness
of work and in every possible way, and compete upon terms most
advantageous to the higher bodies and most disadvantageous
to the Lodges, due to the fact that the Lodges and Grand Lodges
can always be deceived into legislating against their own
interests and in the interests of their chief
rivals." This is what any candid person would write, for
these are the facts which strike any intelligent observer right
between the eyes. A man looking for facts will see the primary
disadvantage of the city Lodges. A man engaged in muddying
the water, as higher degree men commonly do, with the object of
concealing their purposes, will call attention to some
fictitious advantage which city Lodges can be said to
have. Of course it would occur to a candid man that the city
Lodges have other competition naturally affecting
attendance, in the way of theaters, clubs, lectures,
musicales, shows and entertainments of a hundred kinds,
which the country Lodge does not have. However, this element
in the case, powerful as it is, is secondary to the one first
pointed out. The Grand Master points out that Minneapolis
Lodge, of Minneapolis, had an attendance at funerals of only 2 6
- 10 per cent of its resident membership. Reference to his table
shows that this means an average attendance of twenty-five,
at thirty-six funerals. Now a candid man would see at
once that an attendance of twenty-five may be just as large for
a Lodge of 1230 members as it is for a Lodge of 123 members, for
the reason that the former will have ten times as many funerals
as the latter. While the large Lodge is having thirty funerals,
and turning out 750 of her members, the small Lodge in the
same time is having three, and turning out 75 of her
members, exactly the same percentage. We have understood
that Minneapolis Lodge has the matter of attendance at funerals
systematized. Any Lodge as large as she, and having as many
funerals as she, ought to and must systematize the matter. We
admit that an average funeral attendance of twenty-five seems
small, but only because it would suggest an attendance upon some
occasions of fewer than twenty. The average attendance is
of no consequence, in our opinion. The important question is,
what is the minimum attendance. A minimum attendance of
twenty-five is large enough for any Lodge, and many more than
that would represent a waste of human life and energy, limited
as these assets are. An intelligent administration will
try to accomplish three results in the matter of Lodge funerals:
First, that the attendance shall never fall below a minimum
which is becoming and creditable. Second, that each member shall
do his share, unless unavoidably prevented, and; third, that
the time of the members shall not be wasted by giving to
funerals a disproportionate amount of time. Unless upon some
special occasion, there is no satisfaction to any thoughtful man
in attendance at a funeral of one hundred men, seventy-five of
whom might be doing work to make the world better or richer. The
individual member will get just as much good for himself out of
one Masonic funeral a year as he would out of attending
thirty-six. If Minneapolis Lodge has the matter so
systematized (as we have understood that she has) that her
average attendance of twenty-five means, as a rule, not the same
twenty-five, but so that in due time practically the whole Lodge
is turned out, then no one outside the Lodge has any license to
criticise her. And if we were inside the Lodge, our only effort
would be to make the average of twenty-five a minimum of
twenty-five. And if the system is such that the average and the
minimum are already practically the same, in that case we
have nothing but congratulations for Minneapolis Lodge upon
her solution of the funeral problem. It remains to be said
that the conclusion drawn by the Grand Master of Minnesota is
predicated upon insufficient data. Even if the showing made by
the large Lodges of Minnesota is not creditable, there are large
Lodges elsewhere. The annual report of Palestine Lodge of
Detroit, for example, shows that her average attendance during
1910 at all meetings, exclusive of funerals, was 301, and the
average attendance at funerals was fifty. This with an average
active membership of 1535, Last June THE AMERICAN FREEMASON
printed statistics of sixteen large Lodges in eleven states. Not
one of them is in Minnesota. Fourteen of the sixteen gave their
average attendance at all meetings, including funerals.
Following are some figures relative to those
fourteen:
Aggregate membership of fourteen Lodges
9380
Aggregate average attendance 1618
Per cent of average
attendance 17.2
Highest per cent 27
Lowest percent
8.4
These are percentages of total membership, not of
resident membership. And the Lodges which keep the average down
are certain old and inactive Lodges, which would make a very
different showing if only resident membership were considered,
as in Grand Master Patton's figures. It would be fair to
conclude that the condition in Minnesota is exceptional. It
certainly is such if we are to understand that but one of
Minnesota's large Lodges makes any attempt to promote social
features. It is our experience and observation that the larger
Lodge becomes, the more it cultivates the social
features. The large Lodges of Minnesota are exceptional,
there must be some reason. Our guess would be they have
abandoned the social side of Masonry wholly to the higher degree
bodies, and that the limit of their ambition is to qualify men
for these other bodies. Undoubtedly such is the tendency
in American cities. Unquestionably that is the cause of our
enormous American Lodges. And this we feel bound to point out
for the benefit of our British cousins, who cannot understand a
Lodge of more than a thousand members. This is, perhaps, the
first time that any one has undertaken to show them the why of
such a Lodge. We once had the original system, which
still survives in the British Isles. The first edition of Webb's
Monitor, published near the end of the eighteenth century,
states, in effect, that when a Lodge has more than fifty members
it is thought to be too large, and in such case some of the most
expert Craftsmen, gathering to themselves some of the other
members, will leave the old Lodge and form a new one. At
that time Lodges had no competition. Afterwards competition
of the Commanderies had the effect of increasing somewhat
the ordinary maximum. Until the present generation very
large Lodges were unknown, or almost unknown, and it is not
more than ten years since an American Lodge for the first time
touched a membership of 1000. Now, it is only within the present
generation that the competition of the Scottish Rite and of the
Shrine has been felt. Suppose in an average body of fifty
Masons there are just enough active members to keep a Lodge
moving. Now in a large American city you must have fifty more to
furnish workers for some Chapter, fifty more for some
Commandery, one hundred more for some set of Scottish Rite
bodies, and fifty more for a Shrine. Total 300, and the Lodge
has lost all the advantages of small size, and has nothing left
to work for but the advantages of large size. Our British
cousins will understand this at once, for they know in what the
advantages of small size consist. They will also realize how
different is the Masonic spirit in an American city Lodge from
that in a British city Lodge. Compare two of the same size,
whether of fifty or five hundred, if you can imagine an American
city Lodge of fifty or a British city Lodge of five hundred. Let
each of our British cousins think of the most zealous and
enterprising Lodge which he knows, and then imagine the same
Lodge with five-sixths of its best men giving their time, their
interest and their energy to other Masonic bodies, thinking when
they think of Masonry, not of the Lodge, but of Commandery,
Consistory or Shrine. Of course it is understood that
these bodies are always relatively large, Consistories and
Shrines especially. A Consistory (which is a short term meaning,
in popular American usage, a set of Scottish Rite bodies,
officially comprising a Lodge of Perfection, a Council, a
Chapter and a Consistory) or a Shrine (meaning a Temple of the
so-called Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine) is
always relatively large. They exist in the large cities only,
and there is always only one of each. Here are two instances
illustrating the character of their activities in America: In
Chicago last month Oriental Consistory and its concordant
Scottish Rite bodies conferred the Scottish Rite degrees
upon 1251 Masons in a single class and in four successive
days, and must have collected in fees not less than
$125,100. Medinah Temple of Chicago a few years ago had a
single class of upwards of a thousand men. Both of these bodies
have plans for great buildings, that of the Shrine (Medinah
Temple) for example, is to be 150 by 218 feet in size. It will
seat 5,000 men and will have a stage 70 feet deep. It will have
a banquet room large enough for 2,500 men to sit down at one
time. The figures of the membership of these bodies are not
accessible at this moment, but they have each 8,000 or 10,000
members. But a very small part of the influence of such
bodies upon the Lodges has been analyzed, and the limit of a
single article is reached. But, to hint at a great deal in a
single: sentence, let us ask, what figure would each Lodge cut
if there were in the same city five or six hundred Lodges of
fifty members each? They might aim at prestige in legitimate
ways if they were all on an even footing. But with these great
and wealthy bodies overshadowing them, what choice have
they, if they have any ambition at all, but to try to rival them
upon their own ground? An American city Lodge which wishes
to amount to anything must have a large membership and large
funds. It may be that in the cities of Minnesota, even the large
Lodges have become nothing but the vestibule to Masonry, of no
consequence in themselves and fulfilling no function except to
qualify men for the higher degree bodies. In other cities they
represent a heroic struggle against such a fate, and they ought
to be appreciated and applauded instead of being depreciated and
condemned. Finally, the time has come when Lodge men
should make the plans for the Lodges, and the advice of men
should be received with some degree of coldness when they are
men who, figuratively speaking, are Lodge men only one day in
each year, and for 364 days (in leap year 365) are
Commandery men, Consistory men or Shriners. They have each
chosen to prefer some other body to the Lodge, and cannot
complain if they are rated accordingly in the Lodges. The
interests of these several bodies are not identical but diverse,
and very often adverse. Any man who argues that they are
identical is always a man who, when the time comes to make a
choice, will choose the interest of some body other than the
Lodge. They are all honest men, no doubt, and do not realize
that adversity of interest. It is not denied that they have the
right to prefer what they call the higher bodies. There is not
in this article any appeal to them to change. But there is in it
a call to Lodge men to see the truth as to the situation of
American city Lodges, and to become and to continue open-eyed
and watchful. back to top
|
