          This file is copyright (c) 1995 The Philalethes Society and all
          rights including any redistribution rights are reserved by the
          copyright holder. Permission to quote from, redistribute or to
          otherwise use these materials must be obtained from the
          copyright holder directly by contacting The Philalethes,
          Nelson King, FPS, Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt
          Ontario Canada, M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax:
          416-293-8634 or CIS: 71202,22
          
          CHANGE - - THE SIX LETTER, "FOUR LETTER" WORD!
          The 1995 Annual Assembly, Feast and Forum Lecture
          by
          Robert G. Davis, FPS, 2nd Vice President
          
          
          "Tellson's . . . by Temple Bar was an old-fashioned place,
          even in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty. It
          was very dark, very ugly, very incommodious. It was an
          old-fashioned place, moreover, in the moral attribute that the
          partners in the House were proud of its smallness, proud of
          its darkness, proud of its ugliness, proud of its
          incommodiousness. They were even boastful of its
          eminence in those particulars, and were fired by an express
          conviction that, if it were less objectionable, it would be less
          respectable. Tellson's (they said) wanted no elbowroom,
          Tellson's wanted no light, Tellson's wanted no embellishment
          . . . "
          "Thus it had come to pass, that Tellson's was the triumphant
          perfection of inconvenience . . . "
          " . . . Cramped in all kinds of dim cupboards and hutches at
          Tellson's, the oldest of men carried on the business gravely.
          When they took a young man into Tellson's London house,
          they hid him somewhere till he was old. They kept him in a
          dark place, like a cheese, until he had the full Tellson flavour
          and blue-mould upon him. Then only was he permitted to be
          seen, spectacularly poring over large books, and casting his
          breeches and gaiters into the general weight of the
          establishment."
          My brethren, it occurs to me that you may have wondered if
          this quotation from Charles Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities,"
          was talking about a bank (which it was) or a Masonic Lodge!
          Because, in many ways, it tells us about the perceptions and
          the values of the men who ran the bank. They did not care
          about the needs of the general society, or the needs and
          convenience of their clients, or even the people who were
          their employees. Their only concern was to keep things from
          changing. What was good enough for their fathers was good
          enough for them -- even though their world trembled on the
          edge of revolution.
          It seems to me the directors at Tellson's were very much like
          the power structure in many Masonic lodges today -- out of
          touch with their world -- and breathing deeply of the dust. 
          The central question that I want to raise and discuss this
          evening is this: What is Freemasonry in the context of how
          Masons (and society) perceive it, and has this perception
          changed over time?
          It's an important question because, if the fraternity's
          perception of itself and the public's perception of it indeed
          changes over time (and my premise is that it does), then
          perhaps one of the keys to Freemasonry's survivability is
          that it can only thrive when it moves on a path which is
          compatible with the perceptions and expectations of the
          general public. And, could it be that Freemasonry thrives
          best when it is in a state of change?
          So, let's look at a bit of history in relation to this idea.
          If you were to ask the Mason in the 19th century who the
          Masons were, he would tell you they were a great
          philosophic order. He would probably say that the Masons
          had taken simple lessons in morals and ethics, and
          developed these as guides for their members' personal and
          spiritual growth. And truer words could not have been
          spoken. Because the philosophic and religious undertones
          which found their way into the several Masonic lectures
          during the very late 18th, and early 19th century era, were
          fully developed and interpreted around the turn of this
          century by men like Newton, Pike, Waite, Haywood, Vail,
          Buck, Pound, and Mackey -- all 19th or early 20th century
          Masonic writers. 
          And if you were to ask the man on the street who the
          Masons of the same period were, he would say, "Oh, they
          are a great secret society -- perhaps the father of all such
          societies." And again, truer words could not have been
          spoken. 
          We had a match. At the turn of this century, and well into its
          first quarter, it was popular to belong to secret societies. It
          was a fellow of questionable class indeed who did not belong
          to at least two or three such groups. And the great 19th
          century deist religious movement, along with the philosophic
          debates which centered around morals and ethics were the
          themes that excited the Victorian mind.
          But, Freemasonry was around before it was popular to be a
          secret society. If you would ask the Mason in the late 18th
          century who the Masons were, he would probably tell you
          they were the lecturists -- a group of men whose intellectual
          and creative abilities molded the basic tenets of the Craft
          into a greater and richer source of wisdom and
          understanding. And, truer words could not have been
          spoken. Led by the Englishmen Calcott, Hutchinson,
          Dunckerly, Oliver, and William Preston, and expanded by
          American, Thomas Smith Webb, Freemasonry of this period
          evolved from the simplistic ritual stages of the early
          speculative days to a system of formal lectures which have
          not been equaled or bettered in 225 years. 
          And, as for the man on the street, he would tell you that
          Masonry in the latter part of the 18th century was a social
          club for gentlemen which exacted political and social
          influence in many endeavors of public and private life. Once
          again, his words would be true. Certainly, in the early days of
          America, the constitutional principles and legislative
          assemblies had more to do with the practices and the ideals
          of the Masonic lodges than in any other group not organized
          for partisan purposes. In Europe, civil society was invented
          in the new enclaves of sociability of which Freemasonry was
          the most avowedly constitutional and aggressively civic.
          What was true for the private societies of the 18th century
          was also characteristic of Freemasonry.
          Again, we had a match. It was popular to be involved with an
          organization that had a unifying language of power, that
          demonstrated ordered behavior, and with an overlaying
          ideology of improvement in things moral and material. Ethics
          in tandem with self-interest. It was a powerful idea, indeed!
          But, Freemasonry was around before it was popular to
          belong to a formalized school of ritual, or even a social club
          for gentlemen with political and civic interests. If you would
          ask the Mason of the late 17th or early 18th century who the
          Masons were, he would likely tell you, "Oh, they were the
          merchants, traders, and artisans who met for the purpose of
          mutual protection, economic security, and socializing among
          the brethren." To the man on the street, this would have
          been loosely translated as a group of men of a somewhat
          rowdy nature who met in organized drinking clubs above the
          taverns and inns on a regular basis for the purpose of
          fellowship, feasting, and conviviality. Again, both would have
          been correct in their assessment.
          Any brother who has looked into the Masonry of this period
          can tell you that there was no rigidly adopted ritual. In fact,
          prior to the second decade of the 18th century, there is not a
          single reference to Masonic degrees in any minutes of any
          lodge in existence. A young man who aspired to be a Mason
          was simply made one, usually in the anteroom adjoining the
          lodge. The process was not much more than the simple
          taking of the oath, along with learning the "passes" and
          signs. There was no memory work, no formal instruction,
          and little lodge protocol. The process of becoming a Mason
          was short. Very little was communicated in the way of moral
          and intellectual truths. Lectures were a matter of each
          brother's personal knowledge about the history of the "Old
          Charges", the symbolism of the emblems, and the several
          moral virtues. The Master of the lodge would usually ask the
          questions, and the brethren would answer them in a
          round-robin fashion, with the candidate listening in.
          Candidates were simply "entered" on the rolls. And the men
          met more for fellowship and the security of fraternity than for
          intellectual improvement.
          Once again, we had a match. Membership was available, on
          recommendation, to all sorts and manners of men -- all of
          good repute, sharing the benefits of fellowship and
          brotherhood together -- with simple entrance ceremonies,
          and few secrets. It was hard not to be enamored by the
          opportunity.
          Of course, Freemasonry was around before it was popular to
          be a social club. If you were to ask the Mason of the late
          16th and 17th century who the Masons were, he might tell
          you they were the men of the operative craft, or builders,
          guilds, formed to provide mutual protection and job security
          for their respective trades. Or, depending on where you were
          geographically situated, you might also be told the Masons
          were the scholars, teachers, mathematicians, scientists,
          geometricians, astronomers--all learned men - -men of
          knowledge -- formed together to teach and educate--to bring
          enlightenment to the non-ecclesiastical world. And the man
          on the street would have routinely noticed and recognized
          the guildsmen, or perhaps even been associated with the
          related educational movement. It was revolutionary in its
          mission, and reforming in its political structure.
          Again, we had a match. An organization representing the
          economic strength of the culture, in tandem with men
          determined to bring knowledge and enlightenment to families
          of the day. Once again, Masonry was a unique and
          respected movement.
          Now, having taken an almost embarrassingly general trip
          through our fraternity's past, let us now move back to the
          present for a moment, and visit the Masonry of the 20th
          century.
          If you were to ask the Mason of today who the Masons are,
          he would probably tell you (if he was inclined to say anything
          at all) that the Masons are a great charitable
          institution--giving away some $1.4 million each day. And,
          truer words could not be said. If we have done anything at all
          in this century, we can certainly say we have taken the old
          traditional ideal of a personal, private, Masonic charity, and
          turned it into a major, public institution of philanthropy, aimed
          primarily at crippled children and burn victims, literacy, sight
          improvement, and medical research. 
          But, as for the man on the street, if he was asked today who
          the Masons are, he would probably say, "I don't have the
          foggiest idea. Aren't they some kind of cult?"
          Whoa! Wait a minute. What's going on here? What's
          happened? Isn't there a match, like we found in the other
          400, or so, years?
          Of course, there is--but the public doesn't know it! And the
          key to our survivability depends on our own understanding of
          the reasons why this is true.
          You see, throughout our long and illustrious history, Masonry
          has always been in the process of change. It has been a
          different organization in every century. And sometimes it has
          gone through more than one metamorphosis in the same
          generation. It is a different organization today than it was 50
          years ago. It will be a different organization in the next
          century than it is today. It has always been popular and/or
          respected by the culture because it has always adapted to
          the expectations and social mores of that same culture. It
          has retained its important values in each generation, of
          course, but it has always added to the institution the very
          best of what each generation brought to it. 
          Freemasonry was the enlightenment in the 17th century.
          But, it did offer mutual protection and economic security for
          its members, as well. And, it kept that, and added the
          important ingredient of socialability during the next century. It
          kept that, and added the important element of philosophical
          and intellectual improvement during the 19th century. And
          kept that, and then added its great charitable influence
          during this century. And it has kept that.
          So, what is wrong? Why aren't we still growing instead of
          declining at the fastest rate in our history?
          The reason is that, for the first time in our history, we have
          let the culture in which we live pass us by.
          Now, how did this happen? I would submit to you that the
          dynamics began to change after WW II. For the first time
          Masons stopped thinking at a time when the rest of the
          culture began a significant self-evaluation of everything. We
          became degree mills, and stopped our outside involvement.
          But we were lucky for a while. Nobody noticed. We were
          able to float through the fifties, and we saw growth primarily
          because our society was a very similar one to the 30's and
          40's. 
          And then, the most significant society-altering event in our
          century occurred. 
          It was the Vietnam War. It didn't work. There was something
          not right about it--and that something was that it could not be
          symbolized. There was no symbol system built around it. We
          violated a basic truth -- people simply will never accept a war
          that they cannot symbolize. In WW I, it was a "war to end all
          wars." People could rally around that powerful an image. In
          WW II, it was a war to bring democracy to the world. It was
          easy to endure a struggle for such a glorious cause. The
          Korean War wasn't easy because it really couldn't be
          symbolized. It worked only because we remembered the
          atrocities of WW II, and we rallied once again out of fear that
          this might again happen.
          But there was no clear purpose in Vietnam. No clear threat.
          No resounding mission that we could create symbols
          around. There was not even a real clear purpose that we
          were trying to win. The result was that a counterculture
          arose that was anti-political, anti-government,
          anti-institutional. It created the first generation gap our
          society has ever known. It's impact on Masonry was that
          sons did not want to follow their dads into the fraternity. And
          dads weren't too excited about them joining anyway, and for
          the wrong reasons. Dads thought their sons had lost the
          basic values and were not devoted enough to family, God,
          and country to be good Masons. The sons thought the older
          generation had forgot the basic values, and could no longer
          be trusted to lead America to the loving, caring, peaceful
          society they wanted it to be. Both were patriotic. Both had
          the same values. But they understood and symbolized
          patriotism and the virtues in different ways. 
          The impact on Freemasonry was dramatic. A gap was
          created between the Masonic world and the American
          culture. We became internally focused, moved into our tiled
          recesses, and closed our doors to the outside world. It was
          safe. There was no risk that the society we didn't particularly
          trust might somehow change us. We didn't know that it
          wouldn't have mattered anyway because the sixties
          generation that we didn't trust didn't join anything. 
          But now their sons are just beginning to enter the workplace.
          Some surveys suggest they are made of the right stuff. And
          they will be joiners. 
          And we have a match for them!
          The task is not to change the values of Masonry, but to find
          a way to communicate with this generation which has always
          symbolized differently. It is the very thing we were always
          good at in the past. So, how can we connect with them
          today?
          We have to understand that the men who will ultimately
          make Masonry thrive, are not yet Masons. And we've got to
          meet our future brothers on their terms. Again, this is a thing
          which, in the past, we have always done so well. But today,
          we either have to think like they do, or put them in leadership
          positions in our place. They will not think like us. They
          cannot assimilate their culture around our rules. But they can
          symbolize their needs around our values. They have already
          told us their needs. We know their expectations of the
          organizations they will join. They want fraternity, fellowship,
          community attachment, charitable causes, family
          involvement, and opportunities for leadership. Again, we
          have a match. The goals of Freemasonry are consistent with
          their goals. 
          And when we place them in leadership positions, then, we
          have to let them lead. You can be sure the new breed of
          Mason who is now joining and will be joining us--with the
          above expectations--will be determined to make a corporate
          difference in the name of Masonry. They will want to restore
          our fraternity to the prominence and respect it once enjoyed.
          Like our brothers of old, they will understand the great value
          of our stable niche in their turbulent times. 
          And, for the fraternity's sake, we must give them the reins to
          make our lodges relevant to their culture. And then, roll up
          our sleeves and work right along side them as brothers. Our
          role can only be one of guidance--not of authority. We will be
          bringing a culture to our fraternity who does not accept
          vertical hierarchy as a relevant and valid system of rule.
          The Freemasonry of the next century, if it exists, will no
          longer be about authority, personalities, and outdated rules.
          It will be about brotherhood, education, fellowship, and
          opportunity. It will be what it used to be.
          But for this to happen, we will have to begin communicating
          with our world again. And, for the men entering our fraternity
          today, we need to build a much stronger Masonic base
          under them than most of us have. Why? Because they lost
          the connection to us through their fathers. They have not
          lived in the same house with Masons, grew up around lodge
          meetings, or picked up in their culture the intuitive goodness
          of Masons and Masonry. And they are likely to have heard
          as much bad, as good about us. 
          My brethren, I sincerely believe that Masonic education is
          now more important to the future of Freemasonry than any
          other single renewal concept. And I'm not talking
          memorization here. I'm talking communication, education,
          enlightenment, training the mind to think, and then teaching
          the values, the beauty, and truth which is Masonry. If our
          future brothers learn up front what Masonry has always
          offered men who seek self-improvement, they will know far
          more than most lifelong Masons now know. And they will
          bring others to us who agree that these things are important.
          We can indeed grow again if we, as an institution of Masons,
          begin to have expectations. We have to believe that the
          mission of Masonry is important to our society, and then
          prove that claim to it. We have to recognize that we have
          always survived because we knew how to make a difference
          in our culture. And we have to become impassioned with the
          goal that we have a birthright of creative involvement in all
          aspects of that culture -- that we can still take up the mantle
          of Washington and Franklin, and the other truly great men in
          all walks of life who were Masons because Masonry made a
          difference. 
          My brethren, we are at another great threshold in our
          evolution. Perhaps the stakes are higher now, than in the
          past. We are perilously close to death. We can indeed die
          from comfort, ease, and complacency. And, we are
          temptingly close to a rebirth. We can thrive by reclaiming our
          rightful place at the head of human progress. 
          Let us create anew our rituals of ancient significance, with
          respect for ideas that have borne the tests of time, and with
          an openness to new ideas which reflect the needs of our
          own era. It is true that some things do not change. Yet we
          too must make our own mark upon the "eternal march of
          ideas." A modern contribution means our contribution. In
          Freemasonry, we too must carve out our own transcendent
          ideals. Our mark so far in this century has been that they are
          all but absent among us.
          So, which will it be--will it be comfort, retirement, and
          isolation from our culture; which will ultimately bring a slow
          and painful death; like the bank and the men at Tellson's?
          Or, will it be effort, expectation, vision, cooperation, and
          change, where change is appropriate; which will ultimately
          bring respect and renewal?
          My brethren, Freemasonry is always in the process of
          becoming. And the more we enable it to become, the more it
          will fulfill its true mission. "Change" is not a four letter word in
          my vocabulary. For the sake of our fraternity, I pray that it is
          not one in yours.
          So mote it be!