Rough Ashlar No. 22: Sins of the Fathers

What's in a word? How do we parse our meanings and our language when we discuss matters Masonic? I find it fascinating how brethren in some obediences, mostly those with ties to the UGLE, but not exclusively, use certain highly charged and judgmental terminology to characterize other paths within Freemasonry, always to describe those Masonic obediences which they feel themselves to be in competition with or which they find intellectually threatening.

Inevitably, when it is pointed out that the terms they are using are offensive, they quickly point to the fact that their obedience, or Grand Lodge, or some Masonic Writer 150 years ago defined the term as they use it, to assert it is correct usage. None of that of course, in any way negates the fact that the terms are offensive. What they conveniently avoid stating, although often their attitude and statements make this clear, is that they were intended to be derogatory when they were coined, and are used in that manner today. The intent then was to discredit other varieties of Freemasonry, and claim sole authority for themselves.  The intent today is to defend what they were taught, because they are usually shocked when anyone contests the legitimacy of such views. It is even more troubling when these people do not behave otherwise like low lifes and have both documentation and educated commentary to back up their statements.

Freemasonry, like almost all other human traditions, is nuanced and multifaceted. It is never monolithic, although there are never a shortage of people who would prefer it were.

Language is at issue here almost as much as the sectarian mindsets it reflects. Terms such as bogus, clandestine, spurious,  and only to a slightly lesser degree, irregular are often used to describe many forms of Freemasonry. The logic of these perceptions and judgments are so ingrained that the average Mason considers them perfectly logical and legitimate perspectives. Seldom do any but a few with broader experience or education, even consider the possibility that the premises upon which these assertions and terms are based is at best seriously flawed. In point of fact, the terms are seldom used correctly even within the so-called Masonic definitions of the terms; they are invariably used as synonyms. In fact, those who do use them tend to get defensive when someone points out to them that such language can actually be derogatory,  insulting and demeaning. It occurred to me as I wrote this that it is very much like institutionalized racism, designed to be unseen to those guilty of it. "We are not biased, this view is correct."

All of this will change over time, one way or another. Either "mainstream" masons will simply get used to other forms being around and will perhaps grudgingly adjust, or by continual exposure, they will come to change their views. Alternately, mainstream masonry will continue to shrink until the variants will mostly be of equal or greater size and their voices will have no real significance anymore. It would be nice, but probably too much to hope for, that the leaders of UGLE derived Freemasonry in the US, will see fit to drop the fossilized ideas of 200 years ago and join the 21st century.

I have recently had a discussion with some brethren, and I must admit there has been a little growth, though not nearly enough, since the last time I dealt with the topic at length. That may just be chance, but I hope it means that prolonged exposure to the wider Masonic world is giving some of my brethren pause for thought.

The terms themselves are not legitimate. In theory, regularity is an important consideration for Masons. But who in reality made it so, and does it even bear any relationship to its origins any longer? At one time, when all masons were operative masons, there was a legitimate reason for that concern. It not only was a matter of being able to perform serious work well, but was tied to one's livelihood. With the advent, not so much of speculative masonry as of the establishment of Grand Lodges, the issue became about power and influence, not safety, skill, and livelihood. One has to question why a group of men, whom we now know were not unique among masons in their day, and by no means the first or only, should represent the establishment of a universal hegemony within Masonry.

Especially when their leadership is driving Freemasonry to its grave.

Freemasonry and the Lost Purpose

Freemasons continue to debate among themselves what can be done to turn the tide of shrinking membership, as if numbers were ever important. In fact, it's probably the case that numbers are what has brought Freemasonry to the edge of annihilation; not shrinking numbers, but the mindless expansion of membership in the first place.

Many human endeavors have succumbed due to their own success. In the 18th century Freemasonry was very successful. It had an aura of secretiveness which admittedly disturbed the temporal powers of the time. However, it drew thinkers and the educated, and these often were successful members of society. What drew these people, because even then, not all were men, were two subjects of great interest in the Enlightenment. These two subjects were esoteric thought or metaphysics which had not yet been demonized by those who held materialist views within the evolving scientific community, and new ideas about humanity and the rights of individuals. This latter may also be described by that most taboo of topics for Freemasons - politics.

After the French Revolution and the Revolution of the former British colonies in North America, the next great wave of revolutionary activity took place in Latin America. The first of these, and perhaps the most significant in terms of the breadth of its claim for universal suffrage, was that of Haiti. Simon Bolívar then led a successful revolution against Spain resulting in freedom for much of Latin America. All of these revolutions shared something significant in common; Freemasons were instrumental in if not developing, then discussing and disseminating the ideas which led to these revolutions, and many Freemasons took part in them. While some academics are swift to point out that there were Freemasons among those opposed to these revolutions, I think that observation is a bit disingenuous, however true it may be.

All this left Freemasons and non-Freemasons alike with a problem with the arrival of the 19th century. Taking the USA as an example,  the leaders of the revolution made a great propaganda point about English taxation as a cause of revolution, however, as soon as 1791, the revolutionaries now turned leaders of government, used military force to suppress what came to be known as the "Whiskey Rebellion" in Western Pennsylvania. No small number of those who had led this "rebellion," a protest against what was widely perceived to be an unfair tax, were veterans of the colonial army under Washington.  It didn't take long for the significance of Freemasonry to become apparent to all. On the one hand, this led to a greater interest in membership, but on the other, it also led to distrust of Freemasonry. The first "third party" to develop in the new nation was the Anti-Masonic party in 1828. Such forces, and the decidedly un-masonic activities that became known as the Morgan Affair in 1826 which ultimately led to the founding of the Anti-Masonic party, led to a decline in Masonic popularity for decades. It might well be argued that the Morgan Affair itself indicated that something had gone seriously wrong in Freemasonry in the early years of the 19th century. 

Indeed it had. George Bernard Shaw remarked that "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." Freemasonry was on its way to becoming a democratic institution.  After recuperating from the disaster of the Morgan Affair, Freemasonry in North America eventually decided to mass market itself, and it succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Not a bad trick for an institution that did not advertise. Of course, it did - by having a very public presence, and it worked. The problem was, that when you begin to accept the unwashed masses as it were into your midst, you need to tailor your message to be palatable to your new audience. The net result of the UGLE's successful attempts at rewriting Masonic history and North America's embrace of the working man and Victorian values, was that interests in radical enlightenment ideas, of pretty much any sort disappeared. What you are left with is a private men's club. Even charity was repackaged. No longer did the Mason emphasize personal acts of charity, but donations to charitable organizations, making what was once an act of character into a characterization of good feelings toward others. I'm not arguing that the Shriner's Hospital isn't a good thing, simply noting how the institution lost sight of its original ethos.

And that is what has led the large mainstream Masonic institutions, whether in North America, or in England to an intractable pass. This is also true in Continental Europe, but to a lesser degree.  See, while there may be nothing wrong with men's clubs, or more generally civic societies (if you let the ladies in you have to call them something else), in our modern society they are simply anachronisms. You can deny this till the cows come home, and apparently one of the modern tenets of Freemasonry is denial, but it won't hold up when you look at the mean age of members in all the Grand Lodges in the country.

Obviously, I think Freemasonry has a future, and I wouldn't mind if Mainstream Masonry were to be a part of that future. I'm not sure that is overly realistic however. The reason has nothing to do with whether Mainstream Freemasonry adapts its message, changes its tactics, or even embraces  - gasp - political engagement, women, or esotericism, although I think in the future, there will be a lot more of all three in Freemasonry in the US. I say that the reason has nothing to do with any of those things, or whether Mainstream Freemasonry embraces change, or rejects it.

Mainstream Freemasonry in the United States has a wonderful treasure, but that treasure is also the albatross around its neck. It possesses an embarrassment of riches in its architectural gems. In the heyday of what I think was mindless expansion, fueled by large membership rolls and even larger bank rolls, Freemasons in the United States erected mighty temples for their Lodges and Grand Lodges. Many of these represent an invaluable architectural legacy not only for Freemasonry but for the nation itself. Unfortunately, these buildings are now no longer the anchors of a growing and proud institution, but are tied to the ankles of those Masonic obediences who own them. The waters are rising, and the anchors are dragging the old lads swiftly down. There is also no easy way to free themselves from them. Some may be repurposed, but the larger ones, and some of these are pretty damned large, as I think anyone reading this blog will be aware, are not likely to be successfully repurposed or sold, because they are behemoths that nobody can afford in these days. 

I have said it before, and I will say it again, the future is in, no - not plastics, but in small. The Bauhaus got it right, less is more. 

However, I think that to gain new blood, Freemasonry needs to have more than a guarantee of freedom from unbearable debt to offer. It has to become relevant again. And in my opinion, what Freemasonry can do to do that is to revive exactly what it had in the 18th century.

21st Century Freemasonry?

A few words from Julian Rees.

I don't usually simply repost a blog from elsewhere. However, a blog by as significant a figure in the contemporary English Language Freemasonry as Julian Rees cannot be overlooked, especially when it speaks so clearly and so pointedly about the major crisis which Freemasonry is struggling with at this time. Nobody can say it better, or speak more directly to North American Mainstream Masons as Julian Rees, and nobody can demonstrate more precisely as to what should be done about it and he offers his own decision as the ultimate example.

Last year we all read, and I hope more greeted the pronouncement made by the UGLE in it's PR statement on Freemasonry in the 21st Century with dismay than resignation, the one in which it declared that Freemasonry had nothing to do with spirituality. The Craft, the UGLE now insists, is nothing more than a boy's club.

Well, I am sad to say, although not surprised, that the US mainstream community made no public statements at all. A little nervous chatter followed, swiftly supplanted by the usual silence.

Thankfully someone has spoken, and someone who has not only the requisite male glands and the stature to be heard and taken seriously by the audience which needs to attend to this message. Julian Rees was initiated into Kirby Lodge No. 2818 in London, made Master in 1976 and again at the centenary of the Lodge in 1999, and and also of the German-speaking Pilgrim Lodge No. 238 in 1978. He was a regular contributor to the quarterly magazine Freemasonry Today. He is the author of several books on Freemasonry and has been the focus of several videos.

My advise to Mainstream masons is to follow his example and do as he has done. There is no time like the present.

My hat's off to Julian Rees. Read on!

Here's the link to Julian Rees' excellent post:



It's Time to Put the Record Straight - Julian Rees


Thanks to Mark Elliot.