    
              MASONRY WITHIN THE BELTWAY: TRENDS AND PROSPECTS 

                       by  Stewart Wilson Miner, PGM 



    I have for some years been intrigued by the fortunes, or more 
    properly, the misfortunes of Masonry as it is practiced in many of 
    our larger urban areas.  This interest has been the motivating 
    force for this paper, in which it is my purpose to look at the 
    Craft in what I believe is a rather unique geographical and 
    fraternal setting.  In this effort I will compile and analyze 
    membership data for a period that spans the past three decades.  In 
    doing so it is my intent to not only look at the area as a whole, 
    but also to look at its integral parts - to see, if you will, how 
    they relate to and impact on each other. 


    The unique area to which I have referred is encompassed by the 
    circumferential highway that bypasses our Nation's Capital.  
    Although it has been in place for only a few years, it has already 
    transformed the city and its close-in suburbs, reordered 
    long-standing regional traffic patterns, and, for all practical 
    purposes, has become an effective barrier or boundary, one that 
    delimits and separates regions that are essentially dissimilar.  
    This is not to say that every place within the Beltway is identical 
    to every other place similarly located; that, of course, is not the 
    case.  But it is to suggest that the area is moving towards a form 
    of homogeneity that gives it character and causes it to differ 
    substantially from those regions that are outside the Beltway and 
    more distant from downtown Washington.  


    The study area, which probably does not exceed 250 square miles, is 
    small and complex.  Extending some 18 miles east-west and about 14 
    miles north-south at its widest points, it incorporates the 
    District of Columbia, the Federal District, and small segments of 
    the Free State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This 
    is the political center of our country; as such it is crowded, 
    ethnically diverse, and increasingly cosmopolitan in character.  It 
    is against that background that the Grand Lodges of Maryland, the 
    District of Columbia, and Virginia struggle to maintain and 
    preserve regular Freemasonry in this very significant part of our 
    nation.  That cause is worth every bit of the effort that ultimate 
    success will unquestionably demand. 


    Let us begin by taking an overview of Masonry in the area within the 
    Beltway during the study period.  In 1952 there were in this area a 
    total of 66 degree-conferring regular lodges.  At that time 48 of 
    them were in the District of Columbia, 11 in Virginia, and 7 in 
    Maryland.  By 1982 the total had been reduced to 56, of which 36 
    were in the District of Columbia, 13 in Virginia, and the original 
    7 in Maryland.  The losses, it is evident, were confined to the 
    District of Columbia, and the gains to Virginia, there being no 
    change in the Maryland sector. 


    In the mere recognition of the loss of lodges, however, the 
    seriousness of the decline is not really established.  To do that 
    it is essential that one also appreciate membership trends within 
    the lodges - those that closed and those that remained in 
    operation (see tabulation).  It is apparent that Masonic membership 
    in the area reached a high in the late 1950's (32,873 in 1957), 
    following which a period of continuing loss set in.  By 1982 the 
    combined membership of lodges then in operation totaled 18,553, a 
    mere 58% of what it had been 30 years earlier. 

    
                  MEMBERSHIP IN BELTWAY LODGES:  1952-1982

        YEAR    1952    1957    1962    1967    1972    1977    1982

        D.C.   25265   24473   22193   19174   15921   12771   10303
        VA      4544    5515    6096    6255    6300    6047    5468
        MD      2207    2885    3277    3403    3299    3055    2782

        Total  32016   32873   31566   28832   25450   21823   18553
    
    Note:  Entries shown for Maryland for 1962, 1972, 1977, and 1982 
    are actually for the years 1963, 1973, an estimated extrapolation, 
    and for 1980, respectively.  As the data becomes available to the 
    author, the tabulation will be modified. 


    Thus in the past three decades the area within the Beltway lost 16% 
    of its lodges and 42% of its membership overall.  These figures 
    lead one to surmise that trends over the period have impacted more 
    severely on some lodges and on some jurisdictions than on others, a 
    supposition that is supported by the tables included in this paper. 
    Furthermore, trends within jurisdictions are not uniform 
    everywhere. 


    In Maryland, for example, total membership in the 30-year period 
    increased on the average by 19 members per year, leading to an 
    estimated 1982 aggregate that was 126% of that prevailing in 1952.  
    Looking at the data negatively, however, one may note the absence 
    of new construction in this period, during which no new lodges were 
    chartered.  Furthermore, membership trends since 1967 have taken a 
    decidedly downward course, and in truth the current total is 
    demonstrably lower than it was in 1957.  Of the lodges registering 
    overall gains for the period, 5 of the 7, Cornerstone 224 appears 
    to have compiled the best record.  But the data also indicate that 
    it has suffered disproportionately more than the rest of the 
    Maryland group since the early 1970's. 

    The Virginia situation appears to be quite similar, at least 
    surfacially, especially in total gain overall, which amounted to 
    924 for the period or an average increase of 31 per annum. 
    Significantly, Virginia added two new lodges during these years, 
    John Blair 187 and Skidmore 237, which together account for a 
    substantial (220 members) part of the increased membership in 
    Virginia's sector of the area within the Beltway. But if we look at 
    the figures closely, just as we did in Maryland, we again find that 
    the 1982 total is substantially below the high established for the 
    period as a whole in 1972.  Furthermore, just as in Maryland, the 
    current total does not reach the level that prevailed in 1957. 
    While the majority of the Virginia lodges registered gains (10 in 
    all), there were some substantial losers.  Interestingly they were 
    the lodges with the largest memberships - Henry Knox Field 349, 
    Columbia 285, and Andrew Jackson 120. Also interesting in the 
    relative lack of any definitive trend for Alexandria-Washington 
    Lodge 22 during this entire period, when other lodges were 
    experiencing both sharper gains and losses.  Most of the Virginia 
    Lodges within the Beltway occupy their own temples, and during the 
    study period three new temples were constructed - for Elmer 
    Timberman 54, for Arlington Centennial 81 and Glebe 181 jointly, 
    and for Macon Ware 192. Planning for another is now underway. 


    Of the three jurisdictions within the Beltway, lodges subordinate to 
    the Grand Lodge of D.C. have been hardest hit. The decline has been 
    constant - from a high of 25,265 in 1952 to a low of 10,303 in 
    1982, when total membership was only 41% of what it had been 30 
    years previously.  During this period the average annual decline 
    was 499.  Losses were particularly high in Naval Lodge No. 4 (from 
    1606 to 811), Lebanon Lodge No. 7 (from 1317 to 466), 
    Washington-Centennial Lodge No. 13 (from 1031 to 287), and in 
    Anacostia Lodge No. 21 (from 1222 to 566).  Only two lodges 
    registered memberships in 1982 that were in excess of levels 
    prevailing in 1952, and in both instances the increase was due 
    primarily to mergers.  Merging has not prevented further erosion of 
    membership rosters, however, as the record for several merged 
    lodges will attest. 


    During the period 1952-1982 no less than 12 lodges in the District 
    of Columbia ceased operations as separate entities.  These included 
    New Jerusalem No. 9, Acacia No. 18, Myron M. Parker No. 27, King 
    David No. 28, Congress No. 37, Joseph M. Milans No. 38, Warren G. 
    Harding No. 39, Cathedral No. 40, Chevy Chase No. 42, Justice No. 
    46, Barristers No. 48, and Sojourners No. 51. Furthermore, in the 
    year following the study period, Ben Franklin No. 50 was 
    assimilated by Samuel Gompers No. 45. 


    Paralleling the decline in membership and the merging of lodges in 
    the District of Columbia was the movement to gradually decrease the 
    number of operating Masonic temples. Preparations for the sale of 
    the Grand Lodge building on New York Avenue were initiated and 
    Masonic Halls, including those belonging to East Gate No. 34 and 
    Stansbury No. 24, were disposed of.  Although no new 
    degree-conferring lodges were chartered during the period, the 
    jurisdiction was able to establish the Convass B. Dean Memorial 
    Lodge in 1965 and the Pythagoras Lodge of Research in 1967.  Both 
    have well served the functions for which they were created. 


    Inherent in the assessment of data chronicling the past, such as 
    those herein contained, is the possibility that such data may also 
    infer the future - particularly if nature is permitted to take 
    its course. Should the Craft opt for that unfortunate alternative, 
    the outlook could be bleak indeed.  Already there are indications 
    that the maladies which have for so long afflicted regular 
    Freemasonry in D.C. are now taking root in the adjacent suburbs as 
    well.  In those areas, it may be noted, the demographic structures 
    of communities are in observable flux, petitions for the degrees in 
    Masonry are declining significantly, and some of the largest lodges 
    in those areas, not unlike their D.C. counterparts, are already 
    reflecting the strain of substantial membership loss.  All of the 
    available evidence, in fact, suggests that such differences as may 
    be noted in the health and welfare of inner-Beltway lodges are 
    differences of degree and not of substance.  Their cares, concerns, 
    and fortunes, in other words, are communally mutual, and as such 
    are deserving of area-wide attention. 


    I would be foolhardy, however, to assume that the formulation of 
    constructive plans to meet the contingencies of the hour will be 
    easy to accomplish.  It won't be for there are those, and their 
    numbers are legion, who look upon the difficulties of the Craft 
    with studied disdain, convinced that in time the cycle that brought 
    us to this juncture will correct itself.  Most of them, in fact, 
    are unacquainted with matters in their own lodges, to say nothing 
    of affairs elsewhere. Apparently they believe that the best plan is 
    no plan, and they act accordingly.  They approach progress in a 
    manner that proclaims the reality of the philosophy expounded by 
    Sam Walter Foss, who in verse once remarked that: 

    
         One day, thru the primeval wood,
         A calf walked home, as good calves should;
         But made a trail all bent askew,
         A crooked trail as all calves do.
         
         Since then two hundred years have fled,
         And, I infer, the calf is dead.
         But still behind he left his trail,
         And thereby hangs my moral tale.
        
         The trail was taken up next day
         By a lonely dog that passed that way;
         And then a wise bellwether sheep
         Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,
         And drew the block behind him too,
         As good bellwethers always do.

         And from that day, o'er hill and glade,
         Thru those old woods a path was made;
         Any many men wound in and out,
         And dodged, and turned, and bent about
         And uttered words of righteous wrath
         Because 'twas such a crooked path.

         But still they followed - do not laugh - 
         The first migrations of that calf,
         And thru this winding wood-way stalked,
         Because he wobbled when he walked.
         
         This forest path became a lane,
         That bent, and turned, and turned again
         This crooked path became a road,
         Where many a poor horse with his load
         Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
         And traveled some three miles in one.

         And thus a century and a half 
         They trod the footsteps of that calf.
        
         The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
         The road became a village street;
         And this, before men were aware,
         A city's crowded thorofare;     
         And soon the central street was this
         Of a renowned metropolis;
         And men two centuries and a half     
         Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

         Each day a hundred thousand rout 
         Followed the zigzag calf about;
         And o'er his crooked journey went
         The traffic of a continent.

         A hundred thousand men were led
         By one calf near three centuries dead.
         They followed still his crooked way,
         And lost one hundred years a day; 
         For thus such reverence is lent 
         To well-established precedent.

         A moral lesson this might teach,
         Were I ordained and called to preach;
         For men are prone to go it blind 
         Along the pathways of the mind, 
         And work away from sun to sun 
         To do what other men have done.

         They follow in the beaten track, 
         And out and in, and forth and back, 
         And still their devious course pursue,
         To keep the path that others do.

         But how the wise old woods-gods laugh,
         Who saw the first primeval calf!

         Ah!  Many things this tale might teach,
         But I am not ordained to preach.
         

    While I am certainly not ordained, and couldn't preach even if I 
    wanted to, I am nevertheless compelled to express my unwillingness 
    to follow calf paths, old or new.  Unfortunately there are many 
    calf paths around, and I fear that they are being frequently 
    utilized by Masons.  One who shuns them, however, is a hypothetical 
    brother of mine, a Mason who lives on the west coast, loves 
    America, and is concerned about the continuing presence of regular 
    Freemasonry in and around our national capital.  And he is able, 
    from his vantage point the breadth of a continent away, to keep 
    parochialism and imagined self-interest from coloring his 
    judgments. 


    Our anonymous brother begins his assessment by asking some 
    pertinent questions pertaining to plans and policies already 
    formulated to assess the issues of the day.  He is not really 
    surprised to learn that very little, if anything, has been done to 
    date to confront problems that have plagued Masonry within the 
    Beltway for years.  Rationalizing to a degree, despite his 
    reluctance to do so, he asks himself why this area should be any 
    different, noting the apparent preference of Masonic leaders 
    everywhere to discuss rather than to relieve the concerns of the 
    Craft.  This disturbs him deeply, for he is a firm believer in the 
    advantages that accrue to self-starters, in and out of the 
    fraternity, and he strongly suspects that the early application of 
    a measure of local initiative would have been in the general 
    interest of inner-Beltway Masonry. 

    
    Not wishing to dwell on the negative, however, he begins to play 
    with the data and to look with interest at the map.  He is 
    intrigued by the three-fold division of the area and begins to 
    speculate on the benefits that might possibly accrue through 
    unification of Masonic authority within the Beltway. Looking 
    intently at the tabular summaries of membership, he notes that 
    should such a merger by possible, the strength of the resultant 
    Grand Lodge would be considerably enhanced. 

    
    His imagination runs away with his thoughts, and he begins to dream 
    of something called the Grand Lodge of the Nation's Capital and of 
    the measures that would have to be taken to integrate and unify the 
    laws, customs, and rituals now in use in the area.  Unquestionably 
    he likes the idea, for in his mind it is fraught with potential.  
    But being an experienced Mason, one who is appreciative of reality, 
    he recognizes that desirable as unification may be for the area, 
    the idea is undoubtedly one whose time has not yet arrived.  In 
    fact, he concludes, that time may never come. 


    "But even if unification is not possible," he reasons, "are there 
    not advantages to be had in alternative modifications of authority 
    in the area?"  "I wonder what the outcome would be," he muses, "if 
    jurisdictional lines within the Beltway were to be removed and the 
    entire area considered open to work and development without 
    restriction."  In developing his thoughts he is caused to look at 
    the Masonic history of the region and to contemplate the impact 
    thereon of the creation and subsequent diminishment of the District 
    of Columbia. 


    Our hypothetical west-coast brother thinks about the fact that 
    George Washington laid out the specifications for the Federal 
    District; the fact that the Federal District originally included 
    30.75 square miles of Virginia territory; and the fact that this 
    territory, which included what is now Arlington County and the City 
    of Alexandria remained a part of the Federal District until 1846, 
    when it was returned to Virginia.  He also recalls that during the 
    years of existence of the Virginia segment of the Federal District, 
    the area was shared Masonically by the Grand Lodges of Virginia and 
    the District of Columbia, both having operating subordinate lodges 
    within it.  Even more interesting to him is the discovery that for 
    an indeterminate period between 1833 and 1843, Evangelical Lodge 
    No. 8 of the District of Columbia met in the rooms of 
    Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22. Furthermore the record 
    indicates the relationship was entirely harmonious. 


    In such an arrangement there could be advantages for all concerned, 
    our anonymous brother concludes, particularly for the lodges in the 
    District of Columbia, which are now hard put to find either 
    adequate meeting places or affordable high-quality building sites 
    within the District.  Our brother is of the opinion that the 
    removal of this obstacle might well prove to be a motivating force 
    that would lead to the rejuvenation of the Masonic movement, not 
    only in D.C., but in the suburbs as well. 


    The cooperation of Evangelical Lodge No. 8 and Alexandria 
    Washington Lodge No. 22, more than a century ago, preys on his mind.  
    "Isn't this the precedent we need," he asks, "to launch a new era 
    of cooperation?"  And he cannot help but think that the pooling of 
    selected resources would benefit the Masonic movement through the 
    improvement of existing or the construction of new Masonic temples. 


    Somewhere he had read about the lodge that had a beautiful building 
    lot in one of the finest suburban communities but was short of 
    construction money. Worse still, as he recalled the account, the 
    lodge had found that bands do not loan money anymore to Masonic 
    lodges. "Doesn't it make sense," he reasoned, "to facilitate the 
    cooperation of the lodge with the lot with another lodge having 
    money, even it is subordinate to another Grand Lodge?"  "Why," he 
    asks, "should those lodges not have the opportunity to meet under 
    the same roof?  Both would enjoy improved facilities, and it seems 
    reasonable to assume that both would prosper."  But again 
    experience tells him that desirable though the concept may be, the 
    chances of its implementation in the foreseeable future are scant. 


    Undaunted, however, and being enamored with the thought that the 
    Craft can be advanced through the extension of existing cooperative 
    efforts, our brother considers an alternative to the proposal to 
    declare the whole inner-Beltway an open area Masonically.  "If 
    that cannot be done," he states, "can some small part of the area 
    be so designated?"  He has in mind the establishment of a free 
    zone, consisting of one-mile strips on each side of the boundaries 
    now separating the three jurisdictions sharing the inner-Beltway 
    area.  "Should this be acceptable," he declares, "the free zone 
    could be used in a manner similar to that suggested for an 
    area-wide zone of cooperation and development.  In those instances 
    where the Potomac forms the boundary between jurisdictions, our 
    brother suggests that the free zone extend inland one mile from the 
    shoreline on each side of the river. 


    Being both a good student of human nature and appreciative of the 
    role that is always played by time in the development and 
    acceptance of any new idea, our anonymous brother makes one last 
    observation and suggestion.  He notes that while the Grand Lodges 
    claiming authority over the inner-Beltway area enjoy very 
    harmonious interrelationships, working and social, there is at 
    present no forum available to them for the discussion, on a tri-
    jurisdictional basis, of matters having area-wide import.  The 
    establishment of such a forum, he reasons, would not involve the 
    expenditure of any resources, would not infer the abrogation of any 
    jurisdictional rights, but would, nevertheless, provide the means 
    by which pressing inner-Beltway Masonic issues of mutual concern 
    could be approached.  To that end our brother therefore suggests 
    that the Grand Lodges of Maryland, the District of Columbia, and 
    Virginia consider constitution of what he terms the Inner-Beltway 
    Masonic Council. 
    
        
    The proposal seems sound to me. If it, or some reasoned alternative 
    to it is accepted, we may be able to stay off the calf paths of the 
    present long enough to shape a future worthy of the Craft. 




                            Beltway Lodge Study
                                  VIRGINIA

                                                     
        Lodge           1952   1957   1962   1967   1972   1977  1982
                               
       A.W. 22          714    774    800    803    778    762   717
       Cherrydale 42    340    373    417    431    412    366   326
       E. Timberman 54    0    199    312    442    550    553   522
       Kemper 64        463    562    652    670    686    648   611
       A. Centennial 81 270    292    300    342    354    321   281
       A. Jackson 120   612    691    744    692    642    575   495
       Glebe 81         234    338    386    398    440    445   407
       J. Blair 187       0      0      0      0     92    110   109
       Macon Ware 192   129    275    344    376    393    388   368
       Skidmore 237       0      0      0      0      0     96   111
       Columbia 285     902    912    919    867    773    682   583
       Sharon 327       147    185    206    224    238    220   182
       H.K. Field 349   733    914   1016   1010    942    881   756

       TOTAL           4544   5515   6096   6255   6300   6047  5468





                            Beltway Lodge Study
                                  MARYLAND
            
             Lodge        1952   1957   1963   1967   1973   1980

          Mt. Hermon 179   783    909    962    922    809    657
          C. Castle 18     224    288    321    361    378    355
          Bethesda 204     384    461    487    457    403    425
          S. Pleasant 218  262    390    490    518    471    393
          West Gate 220    279    316    335    333    301    243
          Cornerstone 224  173    337    460    557    612    479
          York 224         102    184    222    255    255    230

          TOTAL           2207   2885   3277   3403   3229   2782


                            Beltway Lodge Study
                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1952-1982

    Lodge             1952   1957   1962   1967   1972   1977  1982

    Federal 1          533    500    442    371    299    251   331
    Columbia 3         400    373    333    257    217    177   286
    Naval 4           1016   1558   1408   1233    975    997   811
    Potomac 5          551    514    450    369    319    700   541
    Lebanon 7         1317   1208   1058    863    662    642   466
    New Jerusalem 9    627    549    455    369    295    192     0
    Hiram 10           590    589    552    499    374    288   333
    St. Johns 11       636    585    516    446    360    281   219
    National 12        933    874    754    589    442    348   293
    W Centennial 13   1031    918    790    660    521    398   287
    B.B. French 15     660    633    575    501    451    525   428
    Dawson 16          544    482    415    325    220    190   150
    Harmony 17         748    672    589    489    395    322   404
    Acacia 18          383    345    294    233    180      0     0
    LaFayette 19       716    614    533    433    344    277   221
    Hope 20            843    836    760    651    512    396   319
    Anacostia 21      1222   1306   1214   1045    896    722   566
    G.C. Whiting 22    381    367    333    287    238    201   262
    Pentalpha 23       611    552    482    401    315    239   181
    Stansbury 24       669    604    535    446    321    239   169
    Armenius 25        126    120    120    115    107     91    71
    Osiris 26          600    584    518    420    347    272   216
    M.M. Parker 27     810    777    684    582    472      0     0
    King David 28      521    496    435    339    267      0     0
    Takoma 29          403    406    365    317    262    206   165
    W.R. Singleton 30  449    480    449    348    305    253   197
    King Solomon 31    242    226    212    196    185    146   114
    Temple Noyes 32    197    183    180    176    251    229   239
    Mt. Pleasant 33    492    433    379    324    260    197   146
    East Gate 34       423    422    384    361    299    229   192
    Joppa 35           332    312    273    241    205    169   131
    Albert Pike 36     196    202    183    154    144    131   139
    Congress 37        260    271    260    238    201    161     0
    J.H. Milans 38     251    239    213    170    130      0     0
    W.G. Harding 39    328    330    298    245    223    189     0
    Cathedral 40       106     90     84     83      0      0     0
    Trinity 42         162    160    173    161    151    105    74
    Chevy Chase 42     270    249    216    180    149    126     0
    Brightwood 43      216    227    194    197    176    152   260
    T. Roosevelt 44    215    211    191    180    159    136   104
    S. Gompers 45     1125   1415   1467   1422   1280   1061   947
    Justice 46         275    272    252    239    216    161     0
    Petworth 47        489    490    467    428    356    279   221
    Barristers 48      336    304    283    224    177      0     0
    S. Paratus 49      348    317    257    227    249    240   201
    B. Franklin 50     688    742    751    758    677    558   480
    Sojourners 51      243    236    216    181    152    130     0
    Ft. DuPont 52      161    200    201    201    185    165   139
      TOTAL            25265  24473  22193  19174  15921  12771 10303
        


