Innovations
"You admit that it is not in the power of any man or any body
of men, to make Innovations in the body of Masonry
Many Grand Masters, many Worshipful Masters must give their
assent to this or some similar statement during the ceremony of install-action.
But nowhere in the installation ceremony, is a definition offered as to the
"Body of Masonry" or of "innovation."
There is less dispute over what constitutes the body of Masonry
than regarding the nature of an innovation. Usually brethren agree that the body
of Masonry is composed of the laws, customs, rules, landmarks, ceremonies,
teachings, which make Freemasonry and not something else.
But some brethren include in the body matters which to others
are but the mechanics, and it is here that the dispute arises. If ritual is a
part of the body of Masonry then no change can be made in it. If the Old Charges
are to be literally followed, then any law or practice which runs to the
contrary is an innovation.
There is endless dispute as to what is and is not an
innovation. What is an innovation to one is to another merely a change which
does not affect fundamentals, and vice versa. Our ancient brethren met on high
hills and in low vales. Was it an innovation when the operative masons of
England began to hold their meetings in the building which later was to give its
name to the assembly? Was it still further an innovation when Freemasonry moved
from the operative builders' lodges into taverns and alehouses, from these to
inns, from inns to hotels and restaurants (as in London) or Masonic Temples, as
in America?
The Lesser Lights were originally candles or oil lamps fed with
olive oil or fat drippings. Was it an innovation when Lesser Lights were fed
from gas mains, and later, as is so universally the practice now, from electric
wires? Agreed that the candle with its naked flame is a symbol, and the electric
light but a symbol of a symbol; agreed that many an old fashioned Mason delights
in the open flickering flame and finds in its shadows and its smoke, its
consumption of tallow or wax that the light may be born, a symbol different (and
more beautiful) from the symbolism of the Lesser Lights as expressive of Sun,
moon and Master-still, few will say that the use of electric Lesser Light is an
"innovation into the body of Masonry." As well say that steam heat, air cooling,
an asphalt roof, marble floors, an elevator, a library. cloth aprons for the
brethren instead of lambskins, are innovations into the body of Masonry. The
times are streamlined. The trappings and the mechanics of living are
streamlined. The metropolitan hotel now which does not have running ice water, a
radio, electric fan, hot and cold water, private bath, telephone, valet service,
room service, maid service, etc., is rare indeed. It is a far cry, to the tavern
of simple bed and board of colonial days. Yet then, as now, a man received
privacy, shelter, a bed, a meal: the modern hotel gives no more than that,
albeit it provides it more comfort-ably so our ancient brethren who used
candles, their modern descendants who use electricity, give but the same thing
in a different form: give more comfortably, more luxuriously, doubtless, but
give only three lights about an Altar, and as such, offer no innovation.
What, then, is an innovation ?
If some Grand Lodge legislated to use four Lesser Lights, or
only, two, there would be a great cry of "innovation." Yet there are Lodges in
which the Lesser Lights are not lit except for a degree and there are Lodges
where no opening even for business is considered complete without their gentle
radiance. At funerals held on a windy day often the candles will not stay lit;
if electric candles are used, sometimes the battery burns out. Yet no one cries
"Innovation" in such circumstances.
In no two jurisdictions of this; nation are the rituals the
same, and none of the forty-nine are like the English. Irish, Scottish from one
or all of which they have been derived. Changes have crept in. Ritual committees
have worked their will with their phrases. Parts have been omitted as too
difficult. Parts have been added as "prettier" or "necessary" or "better." Even
the printed parts of the ritual, to be found in dozens of monitors or manuals,
have not stayed the same in all Grand Lodges, and, what is interesting if not
remarkable, some parts of the ritual which are "secret" and "mouth to ear"
phrases in one Grand Lodge. are printed as exoteric work in others, and vice
versa. . Which Grand Lodge then is the innovator?
All Grand Lodges affirm, and apparently all believe that they
possess the best, the only correct ritual, regardless of the fact that any'
elementary student knows that no ritual can possibly be as old as that which was
brought to this country somewhere in or before 1731. Yet no Grand Lodge accuses
another of making innovations that its ritual differs. the one from the other!
At least two Grand Lodges in the nation have approved the
interpolation into a degree of an explanation of the penalties of the obligation
Others have tried to do so and been .stopped by, ritual committees and by Grand
Lodge itself. Yet forty-seven Grand Lodges do not hold that two Grand Lodges
have made "innovations" because a rationalistic explanation (which can be found
in a hundred books on Masonry) is added to, or sandwiched into, their rituals.
Approximately half the Grand Lodges of the United States either
provide, permit, or wink at the possession of, a cipher of the secret work. The
other half of the nation objects to the practice; some Grand Lodges regard the
possession of a cipher ritual as a Masonic offense, which can subject the
offender to Masonic trial and punishment. Yet one half a nation does not cry
"Innovation" to the other half which permits the practice.
Freemasonry has a number of national organizations; the Grand
Masters Conference, the Grand Secretaries Conference, the George Washington
Masonic National Memorial Association, the Masonic Service Association, the
Masonic Relief Association of the United States and Canada. Decidedly, these are
not innovations. Grand Masters confer---what is a Lodge meeting but a conference
of brethren? The Memorial Association builds a Temple; have not Masons always
been builders? The Masonic Service Association engages in labors of relief and
of education; relief is one of the principal tenets of Freemasonry, and is not
education stressed in the Fellowcraft degree? The Relief Association prevents
the imposter from working his evil will; have not Masons always guarded against
cowans and evesdroppers ?
But plans are constantly being put forward to form new
organizations, the membership of which is predicated upon Lodge membership. So
many barnacles have tried to fasten themselves on the Masonic ship that many
Grand Lodges have legislated against any except a few which are recognized as
belonging to the family. Yet here and there an "Innovation" in the form of a
brand new tail to the Masonic kite is permitted, someday, perhaps to become an
innovation which may, be distressing
Is a Masonic Home an innovation? The first in this country was
in 1867-not three-quarter of a century ago. Kentucky started a practice which
the nation as a whole took up -all jurisdictions today have either Home or
Hospital or Infirmary or School or Charity foundation or Fund by which Grand
Lodges help Lodges in their charity. Was it an innovation or merely a new way of
expressing that charity which all Masons are taught?
A very old Grand Lodge has replaced its old rounded corner
aprons with modern square cornered ones. Lovers of old ideas and old customs may
regret this, but it is emphatically the business of a Grand Lodge to dress as it
pleases. If any Grand Lodge did away with aprons and proposed to wear overalls,
then in- deed, might the cry of innovation successfully be made. But the
essential here is the apron; long, short, skin, cloth, silk, canvas, paper, even
a handkerchief tied about the middle: none of these--so be it a symbol of the
ancient practice which made the apron an integral part of Freemasonry--Is an
innovation.
Unquestionably innovations have been made; equally
unquestionably they are being made today. It seems equally, unquestionable that
those who propose them, those in Grand Lodge who permit them, are motivated only
by the highest desires to do good, and that neither proposers nor acquiescers
think that what they do is an innovation.
Change is in the air. It is a changing day and time. The old
order giveth away to the new. Restlessness, fear of the future, hope that
trouble to come may be avoided, are dinned into Masonic as into secular ears by
radio, magazine, newspaper, orator. Even Grand Masters are not immune, arid not
infrequently make recommendations which, if. adopted, might easily open the door
for innovations, if they are not innovations in themselves.
For obvious reasons no specific instances can well be given
without, perhaps, hurting some Grand Master's feelings, or seeming to put this
publication in the light of criticizing some Grand Lodge, neither of which it
either desires or intends to do. If an example is needed to make matters clear,
it may be noted that there is now and has been for some time, a strong trend
toward liberalization of the "doctrine of the perfect youth"---the rule, law,
landmarks, call it what you will, that an applicant for Freemasonry must be
"hale and sound as a man ought to be"-or without blemish."
Those jurisdictions which strictly interpret the old law refuse
the candidate who lacks a finger. Those jurisdictions which are Liberal in
interpretation consider that an artificial leg or arm may well serve in place of
the natural one.
The strict jurisdictions look upon the liberal interpretation
as an innovation. The liberal jurisdictions consider it no more so than electric
lights in place of candles.
In some jurisdictions dual membership has always obtained.
Others forbid it. Others have legislated for it. Those to whom the idea that a
man can belong to but one lodge has the sanction of a landmark, regard those who
permit it as innovators. Those who permit it but point to England for their
authority. In many Grand Lodges a hard working ritual committee must bring any
proposed changes before Grand Lodge for authority to make the change. As a
general rule ritual committees are loath to sanction any alterations but now and
then some one gets an idea that an archaic expression or word might be plainer
if modernized. Some words have changed their meaning since ritual first came
into being; "Profane", for instance, which once meant outside the temple" now
means "blasphemous; taking the name of God in vain." Yet "profane", meaning
non-Mason is good Masonic language. Except in a Lodge, "Mote" for may or might"
is no longer used. No suggestion is here made that any attempts have been made
to alter these old expressions, but the principle is the same; the expressions
some seek to change have equally the sanctity of age. Yet it can hardly be
successfully, maintained that a change of a word in the ritual which has already
suffered so many and such drastic changes in its formation, is an "innovation."
Only attempts to put something new, different, un-Masonic into the ritual could
be so considered---and such changes when proposed are invariably from the
highest motives of patriotism, religion, morals, or, at the least, grammatical
accuracy.
There is a constant effort made by the secular world to attach
Freemasonry, to some one's high flying kite. We are asked to "join with us in
laying a cornerstone" or to "form part of a procession in honor of our beloved
Mayor" or to "contribute to the new hospital."
Masons do not "join" anyone in laying a cornerstone. They lay
it. Masons form no part of any processions except their own, at funerals,
cornerstone laying or Masonic Occasions. Lodges are forbidden by most Grand
Lodges to use their money for non-Masonic purposes, no matter how worthy,.
Masons as individuals walk in processions, join in secular cornerstone laying,
contribute to hospitals; not as an organized Fraternity.
Yet here and there, now and then, some good brother rises to a
position of authority without knowing all that he might have learned about old
customs, ideas, landmarks, and if we are asked often enough, implored hard
enough, entreated with sufficient vigor, sometime, somewhere, some one is bound
to assent, and another "Innovation" is made.
It is against this tendency that thoughtful Mason are setting
their faces; against including even the good, wholesome, important idea, if it
is no part of Masonry. If the proposals to "Innovate" were of non-moral, evil,
frivolous character, it would be easy to deny. But when the proposed innovation
wears the garb of love of country or of God, or of mercy, or reward to the good
and faithful servant. it is but human to want to yield---and sometimes it is
accomplished and then we have the innovation, none the less real that it was
done with innocence.
This Bulletin will have little point and less effect if cannot
be considered as at least a voice crying in the wilderness against all changes
which by their interpretation can be considered an innovation.
If every brother sets his face inexorably against change which
alters fundamentals, he may permit as many electric lights for candles, enjoy as
many Temples for inns, wear as many aprons of cloth in place of lambskin as he
will, and still permit no "innovations in the body of Masonry."
back to top |
