I came across an interesting article today, posted by the Brother at Purposely Hoodwinked, entitled Freemasonry - Why the Wrong Individuals Seek Entrance.
For the last few years, I've been thinking not so much about why the wrong individuals seek entrance, so much as why we admit them.
For numerous reasons, this has occupied a significant amount of my thinking on Freemasonry, a fact that alarms and disgusts me in equal measure. But as a Mason who takes the Craft seriously and views it as my way of life, how could I fail to give it due consideration?
To my mind, the issue of admitting unfit candidates is a major Elephant In The Lodge Room, and I know it to be such because in frank, private discussions with individual Brothers it comes up with disconcerting regularity. We must address this issue frankly and honestly if we are to remain a relevant order that is an active force for good in the world. Otherwise, the inexorable erosion of standards will cause us to devolve into a caricature of ourselves, a tragicomic, dysfunctional organization populated by self-satisfied, petty little men who the Freemasons of yore would not recognize as material fit for the Fraternity.
Bluntly, our chief problem is a dead-on tie between our hypocrisy on the one hand and our cowardice on the other.
If your first reaction is outrage at my having said that, instead of outrage at the uncomfortable but undeniable truth to which it points, then let me assure you, my Brother, that your attitude of knee-jerkily defending the indefensible is our third biggest problem, because it fosters and promotes the first two.
The first step in fixing any problem is to accept that it exists and face it squarely. Denial only exacerbates a problem, and to deny that we have been hypocritical and cowardly in our admission procedures will get us nowhere but further lost.
How have we been hypocritical in the matters pertaining to admission? I cite two instances.
First, I direct your attention to the Standard Work. In the Monitorial portion of the very beginning of the Entered Apprentice Section, there are four questions to be posed to each would-be initiate. He must answer each one in the affirmative.
The very first three things we ask him to affirm are that:
Second, I direct you to p. 2-4 of the Lodge Officers Handbook, entitled "The Investigating Committee."
Some Brothers can be forgiven for not possessing this document, as not every Brother on an investigating committee will be, or have been, a Lodge officer. However, the WM has no excuse for lacking it, or not having familiarized himself with its contents, or not familiarizing the investigating committee (which he appoints) of its contents.
Beginning on p. 2-4, the Lodge Officers Handbook devotes just shy of four entire pages to expound upon why the investigation of a petitioner is essentially a sacred duty, and lays forth all that should be considered and how the investigation should be performed.
Can you square any of the above with the "wham-bam, thank you, man" approach to "investigations" of candidates? You know what I'm referring to here. "Investigations" that occur when a prospect shows up at a Lodge meeting to introduce himself and inquire about becoming a member, at which point the Brothers' eyes go saucer-like, somebody makes a mad dash to the office to fetch a petition form and three investigation forms, three guys are rounded up on the spot to "investigate" the prospect by asking him a few perfunctory questions, they all sign the forms, call it good and thank God for a fresh body, and schedule his Initiation on the spot.
Am I exaggerating? I've actually seen this happen more than once. To be sure, not all Lodges are guilty of this lackadaisical approach to investigations. However, if even one Lodge is, it creates a potential headache, heartache, or both for all of us, because once such an unfit candidate is obligated, he is a Mason, and we are all bound to him by the mystic tie.When he reveals his true colors down the road, difficulties -- some of them quite serious -- inevitably ensue.
Taking Good Men and Making Them Better
Amazingly, there are those who would argue that I am somehow being "elitist" by suggesting that we should, at times, actually blackball certain candidates. To them I respond that I am indeed being elitist, and I am entirely unapologetic about it.
That said, I am being humbly elitist, not pridefully so, and therein lies a world of difference. I do not propose that we restrict our membership to the influential and wealthy upper crust of society. I am simply proposing that we enforce the basic-most minimal standards that we give lip service to all the time, and restrict our membership to:
To be blunt, we have not consistently restricted ourselves to good men, and this has become intensely, painfully clear in the past few years. Depositions, expulsions, suspensions and Masonic trials would be unknown among us if we restricted ourselves to good men. If you keep tabs on the goings-on throughout our Jusrisdiction, you certainly know that we have not lacked for any of those things, and this does not even begin to address the many other incidences of extraordinarily negative, completely unmasonic actions that take place in and between Lodges and Brethren with regularity.
I trace this directly to our unhealthy propensity to take any and all comers, every joiner who just wants a group of guys to hang out with, frat style (not Fraternity style).
For my part, I came to Freemasonry because I believe foursquare in its fundamental tenets and wished to surround myself with men who felt and thought likewise. I did a significant amount of research before deciding whether to petition, and after having done so I was gratified to have been investigated, quite thoroughly, by my investigating committee.
The bottom line, really, is that we need to take good men and make them better. It is not discriminatory to refuse to take in every Tom, Dick and Harry who knocks on the door. On the contrary, it is Prudent to exercise due Diligence in investigating him thoroughly. Been to an EA Conferral lately? Its lecture is full of stuff we've apparently forgotten about entirely.
For the last few years, I've been thinking not so much about why the wrong individuals seek entrance, so much as why we admit them.
For numerous reasons, this has occupied a significant amount of my thinking on Freemasonry, a fact that alarms and disgusts me in equal measure. But as a Mason who takes the Craft seriously and views it as my way of life, how could I fail to give it due consideration?
To my mind, the issue of admitting unfit candidates is a major Elephant In The Lodge Room, and I know it to be such because in frank, private discussions with individual Brothers it comes up with disconcerting regularity. We must address this issue frankly and honestly if we are to remain a relevant order that is an active force for good in the world. Otherwise, the inexorable erosion of standards will cause us to devolve into a caricature of ourselves, a tragicomic, dysfunctional organization populated by self-satisfied, petty little men who the Freemasons of yore would not recognize as material fit for the Fraternity.
Bluntly, our chief problem is a dead-on tie between our hypocrisy on the one hand and our cowardice on the other.
If your first reaction is outrage at my having said that, instead of outrage at the uncomfortable but undeniable truth to which it points, then let me assure you, my Brother, that your attitude of knee-jerkily defending the indefensible is our third biggest problem, because it fosters and promotes the first two.
The first step in fixing any problem is to accept that it exists and face it squarely. Denial only exacerbates a problem, and to deny that we have been hypocritical and cowardly in our admission procedures will get us nowhere but further lost.
How have we been hypocritical in the matters pertaining to admission? I cite two instances.
First, I direct your attention to the Standard Work. In the Monitorial portion of the very beginning of the Entered Apprentice Section, there are four questions to be posed to each would-be initiate. He must answer each one in the affirmative.
The very first three things we ask him to affirm are that:
- He was not improperly solicited to join by a friend who is a member;
- He was not joining for mercenary motives (business connections and opportunities, etc);
- He was moved, of his own free will and accord, to join us based on his:
- favorable opinion of Freemasonry;
- desire for knowledge;
- desire to be of service to society.
Second, I direct you to p. 2-4 of the Lodge Officers Handbook, entitled "The Investigating Committee."
Some Brothers can be forgiven for not possessing this document, as not every Brother on an investigating committee will be, or have been, a Lodge officer. However, the WM has no excuse for lacking it, or not having familiarized himself with its contents, or not familiarizing the investigating committee (which he appoints) of its contents.
Beginning on p. 2-4, the Lodge Officers Handbook devotes just shy of four entire pages to expound upon why the investigation of a petitioner is essentially a sacred duty, and lays forth all that should be considered and how the investigation should be performed.
Can you square any of the above with the "wham-bam, thank you, man" approach to "investigations" of candidates? You know what I'm referring to here. "Investigations" that occur when a prospect shows up at a Lodge meeting to introduce himself and inquire about becoming a member, at which point the Brothers' eyes go saucer-like, somebody makes a mad dash to the office to fetch a petition form and three investigation forms, three guys are rounded up on the spot to "investigate" the prospect by asking him a few perfunctory questions, they all sign the forms, call it good and thank God for a fresh body, and schedule his Initiation on the spot.
Am I exaggerating? I've actually seen this happen more than once. To be sure, not all Lodges are guilty of this lackadaisical approach to investigations. However, if even one Lodge is, it creates a potential headache, heartache, or both for all of us, because once such an unfit candidate is obligated, he is a Mason, and we are all bound to him by the mystic tie.When he reveals his true colors down the road, difficulties -- some of them quite serious -- inevitably ensue.
Taking Good Men and Making Them Better
Amazingly, there are those who would argue that I am somehow being "elitist" by suggesting that we should, at times, actually blackball certain candidates. To them I respond that I am indeed being elitist, and I am entirely unapologetic about it.
That said, I am being humbly elitist, not pridefully so, and therein lies a world of difference. I do not propose that we restrict our membership to the influential and wealthy upper crust of society. I am simply proposing that we enforce the basic-most minimal standards that we give lip service to all the time, and restrict our membership to:
- Good men to make them better;
- Men who can honestly answer the four questions posed to every Entered Apprentice in this Jurisdiction prior to the Preparatory Lecture;
- Men who can pass a formal background check.
To be blunt, we have not consistently restricted ourselves to good men, and this has become intensely, painfully clear in the past few years. Depositions, expulsions, suspensions and Masonic trials would be unknown among us if we restricted ourselves to good men. If you keep tabs on the goings-on throughout our Jusrisdiction, you certainly know that we have not lacked for any of those things, and this does not even begin to address the many other incidences of extraordinarily negative, completely unmasonic actions that take place in and between Lodges and Brethren with regularity.
I trace this directly to our unhealthy propensity to take any and all comers, every joiner who just wants a group of guys to hang out with, frat style (not Fraternity style).
For my part, I came to Freemasonry because I believe foursquare in its fundamental tenets and wished to surround myself with men who felt and thought likewise. I did a significant amount of research before deciding whether to petition, and after having done so I was gratified to have been investigated, quite thoroughly, by my investigating committee.
The bottom line, really, is that we need to take good men and make them better. It is not discriminatory to refuse to take in every Tom, Dick and Harry who knocks on the door. On the contrary, it is Prudent to exercise due Diligence in investigating him thoroughly. Been to an EA Conferral lately? Its lecture is full of stuff we've apparently forgotten about entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment