MASONIC
GOVERNMENT AND PRACTICE
-
A WORLD PERSPECTIVE
There are
basically two types of Masonic government in the world – the Grand Lodge
and the Grand Orient; and although considerable variation exists within
each group – there is no standardisation, except in the broadest terms.
In
The purpose of this paper is to compare Grand Lodge Government, and the Grand Orient Government, at both the lodge and the Grand Government level. This comparison will, I trust, provide a further perspective of our varied and complex Craft as it exists around the world.
Definition of a Grand Lodge
What is a Grand Lodge? In mainstream (see endnote) Freemasonry a Grand Lodge can be defined as an independent, sovereign and self-governing body formed and maintained by the Freemasons of its jurisdiction. It consists of free and equal representation of its constituent lodges. It assumes power over its lodges through written constitutions, incorporating legislative, administrative and judicial powers. A Grand Master, elected from its membership, and Grand Officers, controls it. All elected or appointed officers are responsible to its laws. That is the theory, but what are the facts?
Independent, Sovereign,
and Self-governing?
It is hard to refute the proposition that Grand Lodges are independent, sovereign and self-governing entities although historically, the latter has not always been the case. Each mainstream Grand Lodge is limited by conventions accepted throughout the regular Masonic world. If a Grand Lodge strays from these conventions, it is likely to be ostracised by other Grand Lodges. These conventions largely consist of the “Ancient Landmarks of the Order”. While, historically, there is considerable debate as to what constitutes these “Landmarks”, all mainstream Grand Lodges accept this proposition of Masonic mores in some form.
The “Landmarks” of the regular Order consist of such things as: the division of the Craft into three degrees, the right of every Mason to be represented in the assemblies of the Craft, that candidates profess a faith in a Supreme Being, the indispensability of the Volume of the Sacred Law in lodges, that lodges do not admit women to membership, and others. Thus, while a mainstream Grand Lodge is independent and self-governing within its jurisdiction, there are certain limits to its powers to change its nature.
Free and Equal Representation?
In my definition
of a Grand Lodge, it was stated that it consists of free and equal representation
of its constituent lodges. In a mainstream Grand Lodge, each constituent
lodge has representatives as members of the Grand Lodge. In
Appointive Grand Lodges
In most of the appointive-type Grand Lodges, all Present and Past Grand Lodge Officers, all Past Masters, Masters and Wardens of all its constituent lodges are members of the Grand Lodge. Thus, its membership is very large. For example, the United Grand Lodge of England has over 70,000 Grand Lodge members. The Grand Master is elected by the Grand Lodge’s membership and the Grand Master (subject to certain conventions) appoints most of his Grand Lodge officers. Under this system it is unusual for there to be more than one nomination for the position of Grand Master. The nominee is often selected by senior Grand Lodge Officers, the Grand Lodge’s Board of General Purposes, or in some cases by the Past Grand Masters.
In
As noted above normally, under the Appointive System, all Past Masters of all subordinate lodges are members of the Grand Lodge. Clearly, through reasons of age and varying retention rates, some lodges have considerably more Past Masters than others. Thus, as a result of these differences in lodge membership, representation under the Appointive system can become unequal. Whether this makes any difference to Grand Lodge legislative outcomes, however, is axiomatic.
Elective Grand Lodges
An Elective
Grand Lodge offers a differing structure to the purely appointive type,
and it is largely the structure favoured in North American Grand Lodges,
particularly in the
In some Elective-type Grand Lodges all Grand Officers are elected yet in others, by convention, senior Grand Lodge Officers tend to progress in their offices. The usual feature of this system is that Grand Officers, the Grand Master included, hold office only for one year. Thus, a Junior Grand Warden could reasonably expect to be elected Senior Grand Warden in the next year, then Deputy Grand Master and Grand Master in the two subsequent years. Past Masters are usually not members of an elective Grand Lodge in their own right.
Another peculiarity of most elective Grand Lodges is that usually there
is no such thing as conferred Grand Rank – common in British-descended
Appointive Grand Lodges. With the exception of Past Grand Masters, Grand
Officers cease to be Grand Lodge members when their term expires. The
Elective System, prevalent in
It should be noted that there are other variations in the governmental forms of Grand Lodges. Some may be termed partly elective or partly appointive. For example, under The United Grand Lodge of Queensland all Grand Lodge officers are nominally elected.
Grand Lodges – an Expanded Definition
In light of the discussion above, the original characteristics used to define the term “Grand Lodge” needs expansion. Perhaps the following might be reasonably used: “A Grand Lodge is an independent, sovereign and self governing Masonic organisation, formed and maintained by the Freemasons of its jurisdiction. Its legislative power is only limited by Masonic conventions adhered to worldwide by other Grand Lodges. It has legislative power over its constituent lodges, and consists of free but not necessarily equal representation of its constituent lodges”. There are no doubt other characteristics of a Grand Lodge that could be included in this definition. However, for the purposes of comparison with the Grand Orient system, the above definition will suffice.
The Grand Orient
Most English Masons tend to view the term “Grand Orient” with a great deal of suspicion – this antipathy very likely emanating with the English Masonic view of the Grand Orient of France. The general perception is that the Grand Orient is a spurious ‘Masonic’ body, and that regular Grand Lodges should have nothing to do with them. Indeed, the main historical basis for this view stems from the practices of the irregular Grand Orient of France, which has been an agnostic body for over 100 years (since 1877).
The Grand Orient form of Masonic government possesses a number of inherent differences to Grand Lodge-type structures. Similar to Grand Lodges, there are two main types - the traditional Grand Orient, and the modified Grand Orient. In its origins the Grand Orient can in many ways be termed as a substitute for a Grand Lodge. It is of French origin and is in effect a Masonic oligarchy. The term “Grand Orient” means “Grand East”.
A Grand Orient consists of a Grand Master and Grand Council. Under a traditional Grand Orient the Grand Council appoints the Grand Master. In turn, the Grand Council has the sole power to appoint any new member to it. In other words it is self-perpetuating. As a result, the ordinary Mason has no influence whatsoever in Masonic government under a traditional Grand Orient.
Grand Orient and the Supreme Councils
In an examination of Grand Orients it is useful to remember that the European-type Masonic system is somewhat different to ours. By and large, historically, the three Craft degrees have been seen as the first three in the Scottish Rite system of thirty-three degrees. It is a requirement of mainstream Masonry, a ‘Landmark’ if you like, that a regular Grand Lodge has sole authority over the three Craft Degrees of Masonry within its jurisdiction. By this the sovereign Grand Lodge must have exclusive control over the Craft degrees.
Not infrequently over that last two hundred years, in Europe, South America and under French-inspired Grand Orients, relevant Scottish Rite Supreme Councils has taken over, or usurped control, of the Craft Degrees – or, “in a which came first, the chicken or the egg” scenario, the Scottish Rite Supreme Council set up Craft lodges, a “subordinate” Grand Lodge, or both. This is one of the main reasons why some Grand Orients have been regarded as irregular.
In terms of forms of government, a Scottish Rite Supreme Council and
a traditional Craft Grand Orient are largely similar in structure. It
is noteworthy that few, if any, Craft Grand Orients still use the traditional
Grand Orient system today. This is not the case with the Supreme Councils.
Even the Supreme Councils of England and
The Modified Grand Orient
The traditional
Grand Orient system has in the past, not surprisingly, faced considerable
opposition from within and without. Most Grand bodies working today
in
Effectively then, a Grand Lodge and a Modified Grand Orient are not that dissimilar in structure at all. It could be argued that a modified Grand Orient is more “democratic” than an Appointive Grand Lodge. Let us compare them against our previous definition.
Grand Lodge and Grand Orient - a Comparison
A modified Grand Orient consists of free and equal representation of its lodges – the same as an elective Grand Lodge but not an appointive Grand Lodge. The members of the Grand Orient elect the Grand Council, just as a Grand Lodge Board of General Purposes is elected from amongst its Grand Lodge members.
However, here the system diverges somewhat. A Grand Lodge Board of General Purposes does not elect the Grand Lodge Officers, as do most Grand Orient Grand Councils. Mainstream (regular) Grand Orients are certainly independent and self-governing – they do accept and follow the Ancient Landmarks.
It
needs to be added that a name is one thing; the governmental form is
something else again. For example, two regular European Grand Lodges
(
Individual Lodge Government
In having examined central Masonic Government, it becomes interesting to compare the governmental structures of constituent lodges under both Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. Here there are three main types of structures.
1. Under English-type lodge structure, the Master rules his lodge with almost omnipotent power, although in practice the Past Masters of a lodge often have significant influence in the decision making process. The Master is elected annually, and while he appoints most of his officers, a number of offices of the lodge are, by convention, progressively achieved.
2. Under the American-type structure the Master is annually elected. However, while his powers and authority are largely those of his English-type counterpart, the lodge is in fact governed by a series of committees elected by its members. These committees deal with procedure, finance, and so forth. Besides the committees, each American lodge holds a “Stated Meeting” once a month. At these meetings, all Master Masons are able to collectively decide on any matter affecting the lodge and even decisions of the Master.
3. In a European-type lodge the structure is quite different from either the American or English. The Masters of European lodges under more than some Grand Lodges/Grand Orients are elected for life (or at the least serve a term of several years). However, those “elected for life” rarely serve that length of time. After ten to fifteen years perhaps, they often accede to Grand Lodge Office. A Lodge Master would normally be a member of the Grand Council by virtue of office. Upon reaching Grand Rank, it is usual for the Master to step down from his position. In addition, other Lodge officers can serve in their allotted position for several years. Duty officers are also common. A lodge may possess up to three to four Deputy Masters, Deputy Wardens, and so on. When the Mastership does become vacant, even then there is no automatic progression through the offices. The Senior Warden is certainly not the “automatic choice” as he invariably is under English type or American practice.
Indeed, under the Modified Grand Orient system the process of selection of the Master is usually quite different to English-speaking practices. When a vacancy for the Master occurs, it is often the case that Grand Council selects up to three appropriate members of the lodge to stand for the position. The lodge then votes from those “pre-selected” for its next Master. Under a Modified Grand Orient therefore it can be alleged that the Grand Council effectively determines the election of a new Master.
Nonetheless, European Masons consider that their system has certain advantages. They would argue that the pre-selection of candidates for lodge positions, following several nominations, ensures that a person with the right qualities and leadership ability will be elected. As can be seen, this process somewhat parallels the pre-selection processes of political parties in many Western countries.
The other considerable advantage, to the European Mason, is that the Master serves many years. Thus, a continuity of effective and skilled leadership is maintained. It could be argued that this outcome, on occasions, is not the case under a system where the Master changes annually.
The American Mason, and to a greater extent the Mason of a European lodge, collectively decide upon the workings and functions within the lodge. The lodge meets for this purpose at least monthly. The American and European Master – particularly the latter – while influential, certainly does not have the “omnipotent” powers, actual or implied, as the Master has under English-type lodges.
The Government of Candidates and Ritual
In the scope of this paper, it now remains to compare the application and government of the degree ritual and how they relate to the candidates. The English-type practice in this regard is well known. Each lodges sets out an annual program on the basis of available work. Generally, lodges will opt for degree work in preference to calling a lecture, given the availability of candidates. It is usual for a candidate to achieve the Master Mason degree within twelve to eighteen months from his Initiation.
Under American-type practice lodges generally meet fortnightly. One meeting, the lodge’s “Stated Meeting” will be a meeting in-committee to consider administrative and policy matters. The second meeting, often called a “Special Meeting”, will be for conducting the degree work. Americans Masons place an emphasis on proficiency in the ritual, and delivering charges in the ceremonies – similar to English-type practices. Under English-type practice, the minimum time lapse between degrees is usually one month. Candidates mostly progress to their next degree at roughly three to six month intervals.
In the United States under most Grand Lodge jurisdictions, candidates may advance when they become proficient in their knowledge of the ritual. This means in theory, that a candidate initiated on a Tuesday may be passed a Fellow Craft on the following day. Similarly, it means that an Entered Apprentice who does not reach proficiency may never be passed. This is not totally unheard of in America.
Under most American Grand Lodges the candidate must know the answers of up to eighty questions by memory, and must attend classes of instruction to achieve the necessary level of competence. Only when he is considered competent will he be listed to advance to the next degree. In the American system there are a fair number of candidates who never progress beyond the first degree.
Proficiency versus Masonic Knowledge
The question is: what is the price of memorised proficiency? Is this what Masonry is all about? Certainly there is a compelling case for the virtues of a well-presented ceremony. On the other hand, in the English-type proficiency-dominated system, does a newly raised Master Mason have a sound understanding of the teachings of the Fraternity?
The last of the three main types of governed degrees is the European-type. In Europe, the emphasis is the reverse of the American and English-type system. To the European Mason, proficiency in ritual delivery is not an issue. In most European lodges all ritual, for the most part, is read – not recited. A European Mason has little interest in proficiency, as we would understand it. Their consuming interest is inspiring their members with a deep and thorough understanding of the Masonic teachings. A European Entered Apprentice has to wait at least twelve months before he is considered for the Second Degree. On average it takes a newly initiated European Brother about five years to become a Master Mason.
For the most part, European lodges meet on a weekly basis. Usually only one meeting per month will involve a degree ceremony. The other three meetings will be given over to lectures. Usually, before a European candidate can approach the next degree he must research, prepare, and present at least one paper of a suitable standard to his lodge. Often he will present several papers. In addition, it is not unusual for him to pass a written and oral examination in his knowledge of the degree he holds, before he will be permitted to advance.
During the several years leading up to the time he finally achieves the Master Mason Degree, he would have heard and participated in hundreds of lectures and Masonic discussions. This is the corner stone of the European Masonic system, to imbue their membership with a deep and thorough understanding of the teachings of the Fraternity. Unquestionably, this aim is achieved. The question is, do we?
Endnote
This following explanatory text is abstracted from “Freemasonry Universal – A New Guide to the Masonic World” Volume One – The Americas, by Kent Henderson and Tony Pope. Global Masonic Publications, Melbourne, 1998. Pages 8 and 9.
The terms ‘regular’ and irregular’ are used to describe individual Masons, their lodges, and their Grand Lodges or other ruling bodies. ‘Recognition’ (and its verb, ‘recognise’) are used to describe the relationship between Masonic ruling bodies. These terms are often confused, with ‘regular’ being treated as a synonym for ‘recognised’, which it is not.
Regularity
Every autonomous Masonic body has its own tests of regularity, based on its perception of its own character. Thus, each Grand Lodge considers itself to be regular, and requires its constituents to abide by its criteria, whether clearly defined or not. Consequently, every Mason considers himself to be regular because he (or even she!) was ‘regularly’ initiated in a ‘regularly’ constituted lodge, chartered by his (or, indeed, her) Grand Lodge.
Within the closed system of the autonomous Grand Lodge, determination of regularity—or its converse, irregularity—is a relatively easy process, and entirely valid. Problems arise when the definition of ‘regularity’ of one autonomous body is applied to another autonomous body, because ‘regularity’ is a factor in determining whether Grand Lodge A should ‘recognise’ Grand Lodge B, and vice versa.
Recognition
If two autonomous Grand Lodges wish to establish and maintain a fraternal relationship with each other, it is customary for them to ‘recognise’ each other by formal treaty. This usually involves a comparison of the two systems, to determine if they meet each other’s criteria for recognition. Each Grand Lodge has its own list of requirements that most cases, may be summarised as follows:
(a) Regularity of origin;
(b) Regularity of conduct; and
(c) Autonomy.
If the two Grand Lodges recognise each other, they are said to be ‘in amity’, and they usually allow inter-visitation at lodge and Grand Lodge levels, some form of cross-membership, and mutual assistance. In most cases, they also exchange representatives. This does not require a member of Grand Lodge A to physically relocate to the territory of Grand Lodge B. What occurs is that Grand Lodge A suggests one of its own members as representative of Grand Lodge B ‘near’ Grand Lodge A. If B concurs, that member of Grand Lodge A is so appointed, and a reciprocal arrangement is made regarding a member of Grand Lodge B. Such Grand Representatives, if they do their jobs conscientiously, can be of great assistance to travelling Masons of the appropriate jurisdictions.
Over the years, groups of Grand Lodges have formed, where they each recognise most (if not all) of the others in the group. Some of these associations have acquired formal names, but the largest of them has no such designation. This is the group led by the three ‘home’ Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland, which includes: the six Grand Lodges of Australia; 10 Grand Lodges in Canada; 51 (and arguably more) in USA; and substantial numbers of others throughout the world. In this book, this group is referred to as ‘mainstream’.
Mainstream Grand Lodges
Not all ‘mainstream’ Grand Lodges recognise all other ‘mainstream’ Grand Lodges. For a Grand Lodge to fall into the ‘mainstream’ category, it is essential that some of the group recognise it, and that the others do not consider this recognition to be so unacceptable as to provoke an extreme response. From time to time, some members of the group will withdraw recognition from others in the group for some perceived infringement, without affecting the general status quo. Consequently, it is impossible to determine precisely how many Grand Lodges are members of the group or, in some cases, to say whether or not a particular Grand Lodge qualifies for the designation ‘mainstream’. But, nevertheless, the group as a whole is clearly identifiable by the term ‘mainstream’.
He
has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
- Sir Winston Churchill, Freemason
kenthen@optusnet.com.au