A Solution??

Have you ever had one of the moments when you are talking to someone about some issue and suddenly you realize you are uttering the answer to a problem that has been vexing you? I had one of those moments with my wife five years ago, in answering her question about a few brothers and their actions regarding Freemasonry when I said: It's not about me changing them, it's about me changing me.

Well, yesterday, another one of those moments occurred during an email answer to a brother in Iraq regarding his issue with the Grand Lodge of Kentucky and a Prince Hall Lodge.

For instance, regarding the whole Prince Hall Recognition issue. We all know, of should know by now that there are 13 Grand Lodges in the United States that do not yet recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular Masonry. The coincidence that the 13 Grand Lodges were ALSO core Confederate States in the southern United States is also not lost on the casual observer.

This is NOT to say that all the brethren in the southern United States are racists! A point must be made here that this is a complex issue.

There is also a somewhat logical argument that can be offered and rationally defended that it is ALSO about territorial sovereignty, and not about race. As an example of that, I have been reliably informed that men of color and and have joined lodges in Florida, and served as officers and are treated as good and true brothers as they should be, yet the GLoFL is one of the 13 that does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry.

By the way, I have never liked the term "Mainstream Masonry". Its very use denigrates all other "Masonries". Calling the 51 United States grand lodges UGLE lodges is incorrect, since we are all independent grand bodies. We refer to the one other regular Masonic group in the United States as "Prince Hall Lodges" or PHA (Prince Hall Affiliation) and a perfectly good term was offered recently: George Washington Masonry. THis seems a more appropriate designation than that of "Mainstream Masonry" since the later term says that PHA is NOT "Mainstream" and by implication Regular.

Wr. George Washington was once offered the Grand Mastership of a group to be called the Grand Lodge of America and he is arguably the single most famous "UGLE Type" Mason. Therefore, I will henceforth refer to the larger group of regular Grand Lodges, GLoCA, GLoNV, GLoCo for example, as "George Washington Masonry".

The very real fact that not all Prince Hall Grand Lodges WANT to be recognized. There are considerations for them, to wit they have fought long and hard against racism and long odds to survive and thrive while ignored, resented and yes, attacked in courts and elsewhere, by George Washington Masonry. There is a thought that if they accept recognition, intervisitation and amity, their member base will slowly erode into the George Washington system and they will just vanish. There is also, truth be told, some racism in the Prince Hall lodges.

This information is not offered to surprise anyone, or make a point one way or the other regarding Prince Hall recognition, but to lay the foundation for the epiphany, if it can be called that, I had the other day. Bear with me as I lay another course in that foundation.

I have, in the past, called for the George Washington Grand Lodges to withdraw recognition from any of their Grand Lodge that do not recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular in all respects. However, on careful reflection, I realized that this would be counter productive, and have said so here .

My thoughts not withstanding, it has been brought to my attention that there is at least one (and it may be several from other reports) Grand Lodge that will be, in the next two years, entertaining a vote by the brethren to withdraw amity/recognition of regularity from any Grand Lodge anywhere that does not at least recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular. That train IO once advocated is now arriving, for good or bad and we can only watch to see how it plays out. I cannot at this time reveal the Grand Lodges that are contemplating this legislation, but it will become obvious over the next year. ESPECIALLY if the legislation passes.

Now that the foundation is laid, let me present to you my epiphany: What would happen if a progressive Grand Lodge were to remove its residency requirement for joining a lodge under it for any Master Mason in good standing? For this to work effectively, it would also almost be necessary that a "Grand Master's" Lodge be created (an additional financial incentive to the Grand Lodges as well...) so that a brother from outside the state would not need to find a lodge inside the state willing to be a "host".

This "Grand Masters" lodge has been offered in my grand lodge previously, as a potential solution to other issues, but has been turned down because it would burden a lodge with members for which it was receiving no financial support. This rational alone is one reason why I think it would make a serious impact on the Grand Lodges the brethren left to join the "open" grand lodge. Therefore, the "Grand Master's" Lodge would have to be restricted to members outside the open Grand Lodge. That is a detail for legislative consideration, however.

Based on the current rules of visitation, if this rule were removed (and perhaps a Grand Master's Lodge created for these out of state brothers) any Master Mason in good standing in a regular lodge in amity with that Grand Lodge would be able to petition for membership in the "Grand Master's Lodge"... and then if he desired, dimit from the Grand Lodge he is currently a member of without impacting his lodge meetings.

He could continue attending his lodge, though of course, he could no longer be an officer. A good brother would continue to support his lodge with "donations" instead of dues, because the lodge is not the problem, and the donations would not go to the grand lodge.

What this means in real terms is that if a brother is unhappy with his Grand Lodge, for whatever reason (and to hear it on the smoldering stub, all the posters there hate their grand lodges and policies and procedures) they could join a different Grand Lodge, without residency, and no longer be "restricted" by their own Grand Lodge.

If we consider Freemasonry as a product for a moment (a concept I personally find anathema, but it will do as a metaphor) and we are not happy with the product as it is being presented by the "company" presenting it, then if we have a choice in what "company" to buy it from, market forces will effect change. What we have today is Freemasonry as it existed in the 1700s. Local. Issues were dealt with by the lodges locally then, but today, we have Grand Lodges that span hundreds of thousands of square miles. Look at a map, the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island operates pretty much the same way as the Grand Lodge of Texas or California.

Today, we have telephones and internet, which makes all issues local, whether is a lodge in Bangor, Big Sur, Los Angeles or Dallas. Yet the Grand Lodges still operate on territorial boundaries, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing. But it also means that if a Grand Lodge is unresponsive, or "repressive" of the needs or perceived needs of the brethren in that jurisdiction, the brethren have no choice.

If even one Grand Lodge dropped its residency requirement, other Grand Lodges would follow, they would HAVE to, market forces would drive them. Market forces... remember that term.

If the Grand Lodge of XYZ would not allow a brother to speak or run a web forum, for whatever reason, and he quit that Grand Lodge and joined another, the Grand Lodge could STILL silence him, for make no mistake, the Grand Master is still sovereign in his territory no matter where your dues card is from, but the Grand Lodge would not be receiving income from your membership. If enough brethren quit the grand lodge that was repressive over its policies, it would either suffer from a declining membership (income) to itself and its constituent lodges (and imagine the influence the lodges, suffering from declining paying membership and eligible brothers because of Grand Lodge policies will have with the Grand Lodge).

Market Forces would drive the Grand Lodge that is not responsive to learn to become responsive, or fade away while the membership in its state maintains or even grows. A logical progression of this is the survival of progressive, responsive, responsible Grand Lodges, and the withering of... other Grand Lodges.

If this works, this simple concept may be the acorn from which a new Freemasonry grows, it may be a turning point which our future brethren may look back and say: Like the 1717 meeting, THAT is where Freemasonry made the second turn which made it viable into the digital age.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

May the blessing of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brotherly love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us!

To Aid and Assist

Of late, on the internet, there has been much discussion regarding the operation of various Grand Lodges. Arguments have been put forth, accusations and demands have been made for aid and assistance. This article is designed to address some of those issues.

Arguments have been put forth by members of the Grand Lodge of Georgia, Grand Lodge of Florida, Grand Lodge of West Virginia, the Grand Lodge of Alabama, the Grand Lodge of Arkansas, and the Grand Lodge of Ohio, that the Grand Masters in those jurisdictions are “out of control”, “corrupt”, “racist” and in short, not acting in the best interests of freemasonry.

To be clear at the start, it is not the intent of this author to take a stand one way or the other on the rightness, or wrongness, or the actions of those Grand Lodges or Grand Masters, nor to cast aspersions upon any of my brothers living under those jurisdictions. The author will endeavor, at all times, to keep within Masonic bounds, and offers apologies in advance for any offense his words might create.

There is a situation in many southern lodges that men of color are not welcome, or accepted as brothers. This primarily seems to be black men, though it is my understanding it extends to men of the Jewish faith, as well as any man not of the Christian faith as well.

This is seen, by many, as being in opposition to one of the primary tenets of freemasonry, to wit: Brotherly Love, whereby we are all taught to regard the whole human race as one family, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, who, as created by one almighty parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, protect and assist each other. Separation by race or religion does not seem to be found anywhere in Masonic teachings, or in the landmarks, such as they are.

This is mentioned, not to bring up the race issue, as if it ever goes away, and certainly not to enter into a discussion of the merits, and pitfalls, of the extension of recognition by Regular Masonry to lodges charted by the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodges of America. The problem is, it seems that the Grand Lodges, in the jurisdictions that do not allow men of color or of the non-Christian faith to join, are pushing back pretty hard against the younger men who have joined the lodges without being trained as racists.

This “push back” takes a number of forms. As examples of this we offer:

• Most Worshipful Frank J. Hass, PGM West Virginia 2008. As of this writing, he is not a Mason. He was summarily ejected from the fraternity by his successor, Most Worshipful Charlie Montgomery, after MW Haas questioned the reversal of a vote at the 2008 Grand Communication by MW Montgomery (this apparently in violation of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia).
• Wr. Tim Bryce, PM, Grand Lodge of Florida. Wr. Tim is a very active Mason. As of 2005 had a number of Masonic sites dedicated to Masonic Education, and an almost weekly series of articles offered for the benefit of Masonry. In early 2005, the Grand Master of Florida sent Wr. Tim a letter, telling him to shut down all his websites. He was also told to have no more to do with these types of sites without permission of the Grand Master, or he would face charges for disobeying the edicts of the Grand Master.
• Jeff Peace, formerly of Sandy Springs Lodge, was summarily expelled from Freemasonry in 2003 without the benefit of a trial. No matter the cause, every mason is at the very least entitled to a trial, with a jury of his peers, to face his accuser, and to present facts in support of his innocence.

Recently, brothers have symbolically raised their hands in a certain gesture, asking for aid and assistance against the “corruption” and “depredations” of their Grand Master. These brothers have demanded that all Masons, withersoever dispersed DO SOMETHING to aid and assist them. Some brothers under the Grand Lodge of Georgia have ASKED that the rest of freemasonry enjoin our grand lodges to withdraw recognition until that Grand Lodge decides to recognize the legitimacy and regularity of Prince Hall masonry, at the least.

In the past, this author has, on many forums including this one, advocated just that course of action. Over time, however, careful consideration and contemplation has revealed that my grand lodge is correct in not taking this course of action, no matter how reprehensible and unmasonic racism is and what a blemish its very existence is in any lodge: here and here.

It has been argued that the brethren of the various grand lodge named above, and others, simply cannot effect change. A brother recently posted on the Burning Taper:

Now, fully aware that the threat could not be wished away or allayed by the intervention of the other animals on the farm, the mouse collected as many twigs as he could carry and stored them inside of the house. Every night, when the farmer and his wife retired, the mouse, taking responsibility for a problem that only he could change, used the twigs to trip the mousetrap.

So, take responsibility for the dangers in your home, for more often than not, only you have the ability to alleviate them.

Amazing insight. Moreover, as is often the case, these very same brethren, screaming for brothers outside their grand lodge to save them from the “corrupt” and “mean” old grand lodge, are the ones that scream that the grand lodge is “interfering” in the sovereignty of their lodge. They do not see that they are ASKING other grand lodges to twist the arm of their grand lodge, in a manner they would never tolerate by their own grand lodge toward their lodge.

What is unacceptable on the local can NEVER be acceptable on the global, and of course the converse applies. This is a fundamental test of ethics. Its time for the brothers to stand up and be counted, because realistically, there really isn’t much Masons from other jurisdictions CAN do.

We could write letters to our grand lodges, and to the affected Grand Lodges, but if the Grand Lodge of West Virginia would expel a past grand master for objecting, what attention will they pay to a non member mason?

We wish you well in your endeavor to fix your grand lodge, and support you morally. For myself, I will be writing a letter to my grand lodge about the actions in West Virginia, and a letter to the Grand Master and Grand Secretary of West Virginia. I can do that legally in California, because its personal and not official lodge or Grand Lodge business.

Before you write, be sure of the rules in your jurisdiction… and remember the example of these grand lodges. Be vigilant of your grand lodge, participate. It is, after all YOUR Grand Lodge.

May the blessing of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brotherly love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us!

In Case you want to write to the Grand Master of West Virginia:

Most Worship Charlie L. Montgomery
C/O Grand Lodge of West Virginia, AF&AM
107 Hale Street
P. O. Box 2346
Charleston, WV 25328-2346
(304) 342-3543

The "Race" Issue in Freemasonry

On Saturday, October 13, 2007, I published: What's Wrong with this Picture??, noting that there are still 12 Grand Lodges that do not recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular Masonry. Many of these also do not allow the visitation of black men, even from jurisdictions they do hold as regular, and who certainly do not allow men of color to join their lodges.

I also noted in this article that the rest of Freemasonry, the part that keeps it obligation to ALL men, the ones the are mindful of the lessons taught to us by the Worshipful Master, when he says, in speaking of Brotherly Love in the first degree:

By the exercise of brotherly love, we are taught to regard the whole human species as one family, the high and low, the rich and the poor, who, as created by one almighty parent and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support and protect each other. On this principle, Masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion, and causes true friendship to exist among those who might otherwise remain at a perpetual distance.(1)

should turn its back on our brothers who have not evolved their spirit to the point where they can regard ALL men as brothers, regardless of creed, color, or national origin.

Since that time, I have been of two minds in this regard. On the one hand, it is contrary to Masonic teachings to treat a segment of the human race (since there is no such thing as the “black race” or the “red race” or the “yellow race” or any other “race” but the human race) as less than worthy or less deserving. As such, that treatment is anathema to all good Masons, and because it is anathema, regular Masons should turn their backs on these men.

By turning our backs, I mean withdraw our recognition of them. This is precisely what we would do with any regular lodge that self forms, allows women or atheists as members or does not work with an open Volume of Sacred Law on the Altar. I have argued and held that this would force those grand lodges and brethren to step up.

Strangely enough, it was Br. Arthur Peterson, whose antics against all he considers to be non regular masons caused so many problems with some forums, that caused me to start reflecting on this. And thence the being of two minds. You see, on the other hand, there are several issues that arise from my suggestion.

The first is that most grand lodges will not do this. They see the recognition issue as an internal issue, not one to be forced on them… and I think perhaps they may be right. What I learned from Br. Peterson is that the issue may NOT be about “Black Vs. White” Grand Lodges, but may be about Grand Lodge Sovereignty. You see, it has been a tradition for, well, almost 300 years, though one not always observed unless convenient, for there to be one Grand Lodge per territory, called Territorial Exclusivity.

Most of us realize that the policy of Territorial Exclusivity arose primarily out of the desire by the White Lodges to prevent the growth of Black Lodges, Prince Hall Lodges, and to ignore them, perhaps in the silly hope they would just… go away. Hasn’t happened, won’t happen, so it’s a policy well past its prime.

That written, it is a policy, and is a concern. The larger concern, however, is that in extending recognition to Prince Hall Lodges, the mainstream grand lodges would actually be PERPETUATING racism and not curing it… strange, isn’t it, how doing what seems to be the right thing can actually be wrong? His argument is based on the reason we have Brown Vs. the Board of Education.

The 1954 United States Supreme Court decision in Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al. is among the most significant judicial turning points in the development of our country. Originally led by Charles H. Houston, and later Thurgood Marshall and a formidable legal team, it dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.

By declaring that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation ... "violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws," Brown v. Board of Education laid the foundation for shaping future national and international policies regarding human rights.(2)

Separate but equal… isn’t. So by helping keep two separate grand lodges in a single jurisdiction, in violation of the policy of Territorial Exclusivity(3).

Is he right? Strike one.

Then there is the whole issue of racism. We certainly suspect that it is racism on the part of a few of the Southern Grand Lodges, they have SAID so. We have recently seen PGM Haas of West Virginia, who ran a slate of legislation that was approved, and included passage of recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodge in West Virginia, kicked out of Freemasonry by the new Grand Master.

So, there IS racism in many of those lodges, its reflected in their leadership, and the fact that the brethren in those jurisdictions do NOTHING to change the status quo, like quitting their GL and joining one in an adjoining state, or asking the Grand Lodge in an adjoining state to issue them a charter in the stead of their racist grand lodge, or standing up against the racist policies. Some members of these jurisdictions have even gone so far as to ASK, well, demand really, that brothers from OTHER jurisdictions “help” them by making their grand lodges withdraw recognition.(4)

The problem with racists is you can’t FORCE them to change. You can only show them how silly and small minded they are… and that doesn’t even always work. The fact is, withdrawing recognition from them would likely have the opposite effect. It would cause them to retrench, to defend, to fight against the “unwarranted” intrusion into their sovereign affairs. In effect, have exactly the OPPOSITE effect we wanted.

On top of that, the Grand Lodges would then be forced, by their own action and the lack of action by the racist grand lodge, to start chartering lodges into those, then empty, jurisdictions, and when each of THOSE formed a new grand lodge, decide which of the many that would surely form would be extended recognition. In a word, the situation would be made worse rather than better… Strike two.

Then there is the issue of the brethren in the lodges. Not all of them are racists. They may not act because of fear, of feeling isolated, of not knowing what to do, of any one of a hundred reasons. The action of withdrawing recognition from them would injure them rather than help them, and part of our obligation is not to injure a brother in his person or good name. In taking this action, we would, in a very real sense, be labeling all of them as racists… and clearly not all of them are racists.

In this same vein, we must realize that in some jurisdictions, the brethren cannot affect their grand lodge. They cannot nominate new Grand Masters, they cannot propose legislation, in fact, as we have seen in West Virginia, anyone that rises to call the new grand master on his actions since Grand Master Haas’ Grand Communication, have been summarily ejected from the craft. No trial, just a letter informing them they are no longer Masons.

Keeping all of this in mind, we have strike three.

So here I sit, of two minds. Should we all impose our will, our standards, upon 12 Grand Lodges because it is the “right” thing to do, because we all of us oppose racism in all its forms? Or should we sit idly by doing nothing, as racism and its insidious hatred and ignorance continue in the name of Freemasonry? Because I can assure you, what they are doing does not represent MY Freemasonry!

Torn between two courses, both of which are right and both of which are wrong, and each diametrically opposed to the other. Does any other brother have anything to say for the benefit of Freemasonry?

May the blessing of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brotherly love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us.

References

1. Grand Lodge of California, F&AM, First Degree Lecture, Brotherly Love
2. http://brownvboard.org/summary/
3. http://www.bessel.org/exclartl.htm
4. http://burningtaper.blogspot.com/2008/03/invitation-to-georgia-lodge.html