Why are so many trying to change Masonry? There is nothing wrong with it. Despite a few changes in ritual, a few changes in Masonic Law, a few changes in social direction -- it is the same stuff. However, if the present trend continues, we may butcher the regal lion in our attempt to carve out a more domestic pussycat.
Our Institution is founded upon a single concept: take a good man and make him better by the application of our principles; then let him loose in the world, and the example he will set will influence other men to be better, thereby improving our society. We do not pursue specific social or civic goals, nor do we attempt to correct any particular evil. Our aim is to improve the quality of the individual links, and thus strengthen the chain. We are confident in our own realization of the value of Masonry, and we do not need approval from those who view us from without.
Recently, there has been another surge by certain elements, critical of our Profession, to defame and degrade us. Should we concern ourselves with appeasement of our critics? It would be an effort in futility.
Those who eschew us will not be placated by an internal change that does not alter the fundamental concept of the Craft. If we change our ritual, they will fault our philosophy: if we eliminate the element of secrecy, they will fault our principles; if we change our philosophy and our principles, we are no longer Masons.
Again, we suggest that drives to increase our membership are also fruitless. We do not need large numbers of bodies, other than to provide income for expensive buildings and programs that have proved to be counter-productive. What we really need the kind of quality that brings consistency and stability. Masonry is not a receptacle for the enthusiasm of the universe. It is not merely a social club that welcomes whomever may come along, if he has the initiation fee. And that is what we get when we actively seek members. We should be quietly and privately encouraging the best of men to join us, and shunning the untested.
In previous years, we changed ballot procedures to avoid misuse of the "blackball;" but the misuse of a "blackball" is merely a reflection of our failure effectively to educate our membership. And if a Brother slips through without the qualifications, and misuses his duty to ballot, it is our failure for admitting him. We have the duty, the obligation, in order to preserve our Craft for future generations, strictly to apply our principles so our membership knows how to use it. It is not necessary to change the system, but merely to effectuate that which we already have. One does not junk the limo because the chauffeur is too short to reach the pedals.
Should we amend our ritual because a critical element of society objects to something they have never understood? Should we dilute our historic blood to mollify a protester? Do we really believe that he will love us, or approve of us, or accept us, if we make such a change: do we care?Should the United States have amended its Constitution because the Soviet Union disapproved? And are not the tenets of our Craft as noble in principle as the precepts of our Constitution?
Nothing is more elemental to a man's character than his integrity, and nothing is more critical to our Craft than the maintenance of its integrity. We do no service to ourselves by turning tail and scampering into dens of acquiescence, therein changing our ways in the name of modernization and practicality, and casting but a shadow of what this Fraternity is and should be. We suggest, as has been the practice throughout centuries past, that we turn the proverbial cheek, and stick to our principles.
|
In some 250 years of Modern Masonry, we have gone from a repository of the famous and talented to a reticule of mediocrity. Whereas leaders and men of distinction used to take active part in the Craft, now few desire even to be associated with it. If there is anything that will decimate our Fraternity, it is the inability of the craft to attract the dynamic, for without them, we become no more than any other social organization.
The problem does not lie in the general unpopularity of fraternal organizations: we are not just a fraternal organization. It does not lie in social disinterest created by more complex economic exigencies: every era has its own vocational difficulties. The dilemma is more acute. And the solution is couched in terms that are basically untasteful to democratic Americans: elitism, secrecy and collectivism.
Elitism is a nasty sounding word. It reeks of snobbishness, of aristocracy, of social privilege - all things we, as Americans, traditionally eschew. But elitism is not, in itself, evil. To be elite is merely to be selective. If a thousand men seek us and only ten are accepted, the pounding at our doors will be deafening. To open those same doors to the multitude is to cheapen the wares and to lessen the hunger to acquire them. And what is wrong about being elitist in our measure of character? Can we ever be too selective in this arena?
Masonry has been from historic times a secretive organization. Its membership was not secret. Practitioners were proud to be known as such - but our practices and activities were kept privately unto ourselves. This element of "secrecy" gave spice to the flavor of the Craft, and made men want to be a part of it. Although it brought criticism, we ignored it; although it invited protest, we endured it; the lure of special privilege attracted the masses, and we selected the elite.
As a private group of men, we are by our very nature collectivists.. We meet together, we assist each other, we award special treatment to our Brethren, and we see to the protection of our own. This is what collectivism is all about. It is the cement that binds us, and the aura that attracts the stranger. To belong is one of the most elemental needs of mankind, and as such, we satisfy a component of that need.
So, how do we attract these leaders of men and these men of distinction? Do we open the doors to all who knock, regardless of their qualifications (and make no mistake, that is what we are doing)? Do we open our books to the world and expose our inner souls, denying all secrecy and mystery? Do we expand our ranks until they burst out in cries of "Universal Membership?" Do we take upon ourselves the pursuit of great and charitable social programs? - is it not evident that men who are leaders undertake enough of charity and social reform in their own enterprises: surely they do not need us to provide an outlet for that design.
Our future lies in the same bed as our past. Our future is the progeny of tradition and good sense. We must maintain that certain air of secrecy, and not reach out for men but rather attract them by the mystery of our exclusiveness. It may take time, but time is one of the things we have so gracefully endured.
There is no "quick fix." To draw the kind of man we want requires that we act and think and be the best in each of us. We must keep the mien of mystery of secrecy to entice, and nobly ignore the barbs of criticisms from ignorant detractors. From this will come the repute that we deserve, and thence the interest once enjoyed, and the rewards of endurance.
|
