Introduction
This is in response to a conversation I had with a very bright young mason, and not at all anything I would usually say on my own. I’m attempting to look at this objectively, and that’s going to mean saying some things some of you won’t like.
To that end, I say all of the following with love. I really, really love the Masonic fraternity with my whole heart, and that’s why I’m keen to have hard conversations on controversial topics. Some of you will feel disrespected, and I hope you can understand that this is the farthest thing from my intent. But, to the extent that men want to marry the concepts of honor and agreement (It’s disrespectful to have a divergent opinion) we’re just not going to get along, so I have to do what I have to do.
This is one of those topics that I’m going to get a lot of hate for, and I’m ok with it because I know my logic is solid.
You see, I have the (sometimes inconvenient to others) trait of not needing to tow the line of popular opinion. Yes, my brothers, I’m the type of man that Aristotle referenced when he said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
And, because I am educated on classical rhetoric and logic, I’m quite happy to kick the tires on nearly any idea without worrying about being swept away in sentimentality or becoming tainted by the stain of an evil ideology. It also makes me great at finding “the middle way” which is what I think we need here.
In short, I feel very well qualified to take on an analysis of the following topic.
Is The Progressive Line Still Working?
Today, I’m asking myself the very weighty question of ‘Is the Progressive Line Still Serving Freemasonry?’ It’s a question I take very seriously, and approach with great solemnity. I’ve asked several tenured freemasons, and received several different categories of answers.
The most self-assured among them generally ask questions like, “Well, what would you propose we do instead?” I like this pragmatic approach. “I’m open to the idea,” he’s intonating, “but you’re going to have to have a well thought out plan.
I can live with that.
The second class of response is passive aggressive. “Everybody thinks they have a better idea than what has been done for hundreds of years.”
Gotcha. No man has the power to make innovations on the landmarks of Freemasonry, I’ve frequently been told. Again, I’m generally interested in kicking the tires on the idea of another way of doing things, not suggesting we shoot 300 years of tradition in the head at first glance. But, I understand where you’re coming from.
The third class of response is just plain ole aggressive and goes something like ‘What do you know? You’ve been raised what, two years?”
OK, let’s talk about it.
The Facts
Here’s what I know…
Freemasonry, like many fraternal organizations, has experienced a significant decline in membership since its peak in the mid-20th century. This trend began around 1960 and has continued in most areas. The reasons for this decline are multifaceted, including changing social norms, increased mobility, and competition for people’s time and attention from other activities and organizations.
The aging of existing members without sufficient recruitment of younger ones has also contributed to the shrinking numbers. This decline has led to the consolidation of lodges in many areas and challenges in maintaining historic buildings and traditions. Despite these difficulties, many Masonic lodges have worked to adapt to modern times while preserving their core values and practices.
And many more have not.
Many, perhaps all, of the Freemasons currently alive in Florida (with a few notable exceptions of 70+ year masons perhaps) have presided over an organization in decline since they were initiated.
That’s gonna sting. Take a minute with it if you need to before pressing on.
So, to further elaborate on the answer to the question “What do you know?”…
I know that to continue to do the same things you have always done in the face of deteriorating results is the literal definition of insanity.
I know that the growth of the craft in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was spurred by things like the nuclear family, the backyard barbeque, and the suburban community. I also know that these things scarcely exist any longer, and need to be replaced with modern ‘community’ and communications modalities if the craft are to survive.
I also know that implementing this requires men of vision and action. Real leaders, if you will. Not people who are institutionally scared of change and think being a tech neophyte is in some way noble. It’s not. It’s killing the craft.
This isn’t a personal indictment against any individual, but rather against a type or class of individuals – those with no energy, desire, or intent to level up their lodges, their mass comm strategy, or their internet presence. I’m not talking about you, Worshipful. I’m not talking about any specific human. But if the shoe fits, lace it up.
So, does the progressive line contribute to people who have no drive, energy, or intent ascending to places of leadership in lodges where nothing gets done for years on end? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Have you seen a weak Worshipful Master lately? One that can’t open and close the lodge properly? Once that has no influence on the other members of the lodge, and certainly not enough to get anything meaningful done? One that has no community engagement or membership development plan? OK, me too.
Now riddle me this… how did that person become Worshipful Master?
The progressive line.
Outliers and Automation
Look, there’s nothing wrong with the progressive line except for that which plagues every broad generalization and bureaucratic management tool – outliers and mindless automation.
Outliers are the exceptions that exist to every rule. Generally, for the vast majority of people we raise to the sublime degree, the progressive line works pretty well. They get years to watch ritual, learn lodge operations, mature as individuals, and become conversant on the Digest. The slowly become prominent in the fraternity as they ‘pay their dues” both literally and figuratively. I accept that this generally works pretty well, for the most part.
But then we get talented young Masons initiated who could make an immediate, lasting, forceful impact on the future of the Craft and then do everything that we can to bore them to death, strip them of their initiative in the name of tradition, and tell them to wait patiently until it’s ‘their turn.’ Watching a bump on a log sit in the East for several years will demotivate any hard charger to the point that they just go to the Scottish Rite where there’s plenty of stuff for them to do and get involved in. Or the Shrine where it’s, you know, actually fun.
These people are outliers. We need them, and we need them in positions of authority. Gents, I’m not sure the craft has seven to ten years for these types of men to wait their turn while the membership continues to dwindle. Food for thought.
Then there’s automation.
Automation works until it doesn’t. It’s lovely to have a plan for the lodge for the next ten years in terms of an unbroken line of succession to the East. Nobody even has to think about it. But therein lies the problem. This sort of automatic outcome engenders laziness and doing the bare minimum to stay qualified for the next position. It’s the literal opposite of the hard charging, forward-leaning energy that will be required to right the ship in the coming years. Not always, mind you. There’s exceptions to this rule just as there were to the rule of the superiority of the progressive line. But it happens enough that it’s easily observable as a problem in the fraternity.
So what can be done? Change is scary, and “no man has the right to innovate on the landmarks of Freemasonry.”
But here’s the thing – the progressive line never was a landmark. It’s not now. It never will be. Anything that isn’t a landmark, in my opinion (which is worth what you paid for it) CAN and SHOULD change to serve and perpetuate the fraternity.
The Landmarks
Chapter 1 of the Florida Digest of Masonic Law lists the landmarks of our storied instution as follows:
The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida hereby recognizes, as being Landmarks of Freemasonry the following:
- (a) A belief in the existence of one ever living and true God.
- (b) A belief in the immortality of the human soul and a resurrection thereof to a Future Life.
- (c) The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the Altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor.
- (d) The Legend of the Third Degree.
- (e) Secrecy, which includes: The necessary words, signs, and tokens, whereby one Mason may know another to be such, in darkness as in light; that every regular Lodge must be Tyled while at labor; that every visitor seeking admission to the Lodge must be examined and prove himself a Mason, unless duly and properly avouched for; those other matters which cannot be written in any language.
- (f) The symbolism of the Operative Art.
- (g) Every candidate for Freemasonry must be a man, free born, of lawful age, being under the tongue of good repute, and well recommended, and unless Dispensation is granted by the Grand Master, having no maim or defect of body that may render him incapable of learning the art or of being advanced
- (h) The division of Ancient Craft Masonry into three classifications, namely, Entered Apprentices, Fellow Crafts, and Master Masons, out of which classifications grew the present Three Degrees of Craft Masonry.
- (i) The government of the Fraternity by a presiding Officer who, since the advent of speculative Masonry, has borne the title of Grand Master and has been elected from the body of the Craft, and the prerogatives inherent in that office, among which are:
- The prerogative of the Grand Master to enter into and preside over every assembly of Masons within his jurisdiction and, corollary thereto, to supervise and regulate the affairs of Masonry within that jurisdiction, between Communications of the Grand Lodge, subject to the Constitution and lawful Regulations duly enacted by the Grand Lodge.
- The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant his Dispensation.
- The prerogative of the Grand Master to make a Mason at sight in the body of a regularly constituted Lodge and by trial of the ballot.
- (j) The necessity for Freemasons to congregate in Lodges.
Note That “The Progressive Line” is Conspicuously Absent as a Landmark
Nowhere in Chapter 1 of the Digest of Masonic Law does it ever suggest that the Progressive Line is in any way, shape, or form a landmark of Freemasonry. So why do we hold it sacrosanct?
If you have the juevos to question the construct publicly, you’ll be jeered, talked-down-to, reminded of your tenure, and generally disowned. Or at the very least, branded “ambitious,” which seems to be a death knell for up and comers, which is ironic to say the least. In the rest of the universe, the desire to do better, be all that you can, and achieve is generally considered a good thing.
But I digress. I’m not here to talk about the general attitude of Freemasonry. That’s a far longer blog post I think.
All That Being Said, Is The Line Still Working?
Yes. And no.
Honestly, the line is probably the right tool to regulate the progression of members through the ranks of the craft in about 80% of cases. And it’s also forcefully running off the most talented 20% of future leaders of our fraternity, in many cases with a bad taste in their mouth of having been stifled.
It is producing stunning continuity in the craft, as it has done for ages. It develops men at a reasonable pace, and gives us a big enough sample size of their behavior to make sure they can be trusted with the lodge for a year. And it’s also slowly robbing us of the potential and energy we need to launch into the future. What about the men who don’t require as much development?
We initiate CEOs, Senior Business Leaders, Military Officers and NCOs with vast amounts of training on leadership and management, and plenty of budgetary experience to boot. When I was raised, i was running three companies simultaneously with a combined budget many thousands of times larger than our lodge, and with operational complexity that would make your eyes water, and with hundreds of employees for whose livelihood I am solely responsible.
So to intonate that I need time to become capable of managing a lodge is complete nonsense, no disrespect to anyone that’s ever said it to me. I also participate in a very prominent degree team, so I can open the lodge in every degree, sit in nearly any chair in any degree, and am generally regarded as a very good ritualist. I’ve participated in over 40 degrees in my short tenure in Freemasonry. There are many more like me. I’m not special.
I also know that I’m an outlier, and it’s bad policy to make organizational changes based on outliers. So what are we to do?
The line seems to be working, somewhat. It could work a lot better.
Complaining is Easy. Solutions are Hard.
Complaining is super easy to do, and fixing things is what separates the men from the boys. So, let’s see if we can’t come up with some clear problem statements and plans of action in the immediate hereafter.
Problem 1: The progressive line is ascending men to the East with no energy, passion, or desire to improve the lodge. Yikes. That sounds scary, and is observably true.
Plan of action: Simple. Have the tough conversation and stop voting for that guy to proceed to the East. “Listen, brother Senior Warden, I’m not seeing enough drive, motivation, and passion from you to cast a vote in your direction.” And then run a past master or a young up-and-comer with high potential and leadership skills for the East, provided he has enough experience to know how to operate a lodge and perform the ritual. If we can’t have hard conversations with one another for the benefit of the craft, we deserve to have it dissolve before our very eyes.
I’ve heard this described as “drama,” but my brothers, if the founders of Freemasonry didn’t want us to be free to elect people to positions, why didn’t they just codify the progressive line into the annals of masonic law? We’re MEANT to make these hard decisions based upon what’s best for the lodge. Period.
Problem 2: We’re running off people of very high potential who want to affect change in the fraternity and have the knowledge, skills, and ability to make it happen.
Plan of action: We’ve established that the progressive line doesn’t suit everybody, so let’s stop trying to make it fit all situations. If I were the Grand Master, I’d start a mentorship program that partners very senior Masons who have high-level management experience with very high potential young masons who have specific knowledge, skills, and abilities. And then I’d train the hell out of them. Intensive training on leadership, lodge operations and management, and ritual that go well beyond what the average member of the craft gets, and in a truncated format. I’d rely upon my District Deputies to identify and refer these men to the program, and then I’d communicate my intent as Grand Master to move these men more quickly through the line and incorporate them into positions where they can serve with maximal effect, such as District Committees and Zone Chairs. This is where they are needed, where the rubber meets the road.
(This is what has been done for me informally by some senior men who care about me, and about the Craft, and it has made a big difference in my attitude and desire to stay engaged with the Blue Lodge).
Problem 3: Ascending through the progressive line and sitting in every chair for one year does nothing, at all, to make a man a more effective leader if he lacks basic leadership skills. MLT (Masonic Leadership Training) covers everything BUT leadership.
Plan of Action: I’m passionate about Masonic Leadership Training. I’m a Zone Chairman, and I adore the program and the leadership. It was developed by a past Grand Master who has an obvious passion for the Craft and a lot of wisdom to dispense, and is as such very useful indeed for the average Mason. However, Masonic Leadership Training isn’t making a leader of anyone in it’s current configuration. It’s more of a lodge operations course with many, many helpful reminders, but ‘Masonic Leadership’ is a pretty huge misnomer here.
I would propose that we pull apart the curriculum here into separate courses. One on lodge operations, and another that is an intensive deep dive into the principles of leadership. I suggest that we spend some of the millions and millions (and millions) of dollars we have saved up and engage a well known leadership expert like Jocko Willink or Dan Pink or John Maxwell to develop a curriculum for us that would actually move the needle for people without real leadership experience. That would raise the tide for all ships.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
I generally have no interest in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Nor do I wish to uneccesarily change an institution that has been viable for 300+ years at least. I like the concept of a progressive line because of the tradition and continuity involved (which are core reasons why I became a Freemason to begin with). However, the progressive line needs to be governed with common sense and an eye to outliers with the goal of promoting the best, most capable people into the East.
“Those who best can work and agree, or something something.”
I think I’ve made some practical suggestions here and defended the progressive line as I see it. I also know that I’ve criticized it, and rightfully so in my opinion. I’d love to hear what you think on the matter. Keep it respectful, and I’ll do the same. We don’t need to agree on everything for me to love you as a brother, after all.
Leave a Reply