Do lodges REALLY need to have their own building?

[bupton52]

"So, as wonderful as some of the Masonic Lodges of the 19th and early 20th Century were and are, the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition. Freemasonry must, at least in this regard, prepare to return to an older practice, one of lodges without real estate. Lodges can rent space in buildings, and smaller ones may meet in homes. This is not simply a matter of losing real estate. It also means that in the future, lodges will need more portable and lighter weight furniture and props. Such a lodge cannot deal with pillars and altars that require several people and hand trucks to move."

Your thoughts?

 

[dfreybur]

Meeting in taverns the traditional way has the advantage that we can be more dispersed. We can cover more territory that way. Now there's pressure to move into the remaining large structures.

I've seen lodges lose their ability to recruit because of the need to move into the remaining large structure. My mother lodge has absorbed a lot of smaller lodges over the years. In Illinois my lodge was the one being absorbed when we could no longer afford a building.

Meeting in tavern also puts to bed the mistake of a century ago to move against drinking. In the process we lost the festival board and the Shrine came into existence in response. As much as I like being a Shriner I know the history so I am not surprised by the unending friction on that topic.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Check your local zoning laws.

Where it may be convenient to meet in ones home, it may be against local zoning regulations regarding residential areas. I know that is an issue in my state as I work in the real estate area as a land surveyor.

Also, Dispensation is needed from Grand Lodge if you move from one location to another. That gets to be a pain if you're asking for a new place every two weeks.

Lastly, thoughts like this are 'last resort' and we don't know where the bottom of the curve is as far as members go. My last issue of NJ Freemason showed more members this year than last so we had a slight increase.

 

[Willys]

To my knowledge, no - Lodges don't need their own building. I've been aware of Lodges that meet/have met in a shared facility such as grocery downstairs, Lodge upstairs. If your question was more rhetorical - no Lodges don't need their own building as 'A Lodge' is quite portable. To wit: 'The furniture of a Lodge', which fits quite nicely in an open air ceremony.

 

[Brother JC]

Indeed, if sized appropriately the "furniture" could be carried in a jacket pocket.

 

[Morris]

I have a hard time seeing how it works in a tavern or really anywhere outside of our typical layout. Only because I haven't seen it before.

I think if you really want to try then call the weeks between business to meet at X location instead. See how it works. Especially if you're a lodge that's getting moved.


Jeff

 

[dfreybur]

Lastly, thoughts like this are 'last resort' and we don't know where the bottom of the curve is as far as members go. My last issue of NJ Freemason showed more members this year than last so we had a slight increase.

Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort? Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.

As to the membership curve, try looking at the trend across multiple centuries. There's nothing new under the Sun - We have seen multiple generation long resurgences of the sort we are seeing now.

 

[JJones]

Last resort?

Less bills and less need to hold fundraisers hardly seem last resort to me. Maybe we could start focusing back on meeting to make men better again.

 

[Willys]

Indeed, if sized appropriately the "furniture" could be carried in a jacket pocket.

Or in the saddle bags of 'Old Paint', see Texas Independence, Masonic Oak

On March 10, 1835, John A. Wharton, Asa Brigham, James A. E. Phelps, Alexander Russell, Anson Jones and J. P. Caldwell met in a secluded grove near Brazoria and petitioned the Grand Lodge of Louisiana for a dispensation to form a new Lodge to be called Holland Lodge. The dispensation was granted and the first meeting of Holland Lodge No. 36 was conducted on December 27, 1835. The charter for this new lodge was eventually delivered to Anson Jones just before the battle at San Jacinto, and the charter remained in his saddlebags through the battle.

 

[MRichard]

Will probably see more lodges using the same building either by sharing or landlord/tenant.

 

[jjjjjggggg]

If operative masons meet in an operative building...

... then speculative masons meet in a... <wait for it>... speculative building?

Waka waka waka

 

[Bill Lins]

To be blunt, the economic model we have operated under for the past hundred or so years no longer works for many, if not most, of our Lodges. The continually rising costs of insurance and utilities, along with declining membership, have made it so. If Lodges are to continue to own buildings, those buildings will have to pay for themselves by allowing the Lodges to rent them out, either to other Lodges or to outside groups. My parent Lodge, for four years, was allowed to use the "private party" facility of a local restaurant. We had our regalia and other necessities in a large wheeled toolbox, which our Treasurer kept at his house & brought to the facility for our meetings. It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.

 

[Glen Cook]

I've attended the Eltham Palace Lodge which meets in the Eltham Palace Hotel. My. Cheshire Lodge and Chapter do not own their building. Two of my Utah Lodges do not own buildings. One of them meets in a schoolhouse.

 

[Mike Martin]

As Glen mentions here in England it is incredibly rare for one Lodge to own their own building. It is more common for a group or groups of Lodges to have bought and now jointly own a building which they then often rent out to other users (including non/Masonic ones) in order to pay the bills.

When in larger town or cities the Masonic Hall will usually be owned by the Masonic Province

 

[chrmc]

What Mike said. Think the economy if nothing else will drive us this way too in the US.
And to be honest I'd rather be in one great building than see five poorly maintained and crappy ones.

 

[JJones]

It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.

Wow...I'm pretty dumbfounded by this. Please tell me this occurred outside of Texas somehow or that it was many, many years ago.

 

[RyanC]

Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort? Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.

If you look at 1717 as the founding of Freemasonry you would be right, but as we all know it was going long before that and meeting in taverns was not their practice.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort? Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.

As to the membership curve, try looking at the trend across multiple centuries. There's nothing new under the Sun - We have seen multiple generation long resurgences of the sort we are seeing now.

I was merely commenting on the quotations in the original post concerning,

"...the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition...."

Reading the paragraph of which this is a part comes off as seeing our numbers drop to a point to where a defined meeting place is not practical. My reply was playing along with the "what if" and my "last resort" was what I personally inferred from the referenced quote by bupton52

 

[Ripcord22A]

My mother lodge rents space from the Scottish Rite temple

Jonathan Madsen, SD, Crater lake 211 A.F&A.M

 

[dfreybur]

To be blunt, the economic model we have operated under for the past hundred or so years no longer works for many, if not most, of our Lodges. The continually rising costs of insurance and utilities, along with declining membership, have made it so. If Lodges are to continue to own buildings, those buildings will have to pay for themselves by allowing the Lodges to rent them out, either to other Lodges or to outside groups.

Doing it the right way can be a VERY tough sell. A building that becomes a source of stability int he district costs ten times as much as a building that eventually becomes an albatross for its lodge. But that's a huge difference in funds and very many brothers want a building, any building, once they can afford one.

My parent Lodge, for four years, was allowed to use the "private party" facility of a local restaurant. We had our regalia and other necessities in a large wheeled toolbox, which our Treasurer kept at his house & brought to the facility for our meetings.

Tenant lodges are a fine old tradition dating from the transition from operative to speculative. In fact operative Masonry worked that way as the lodges were temporary structures that only lasted while the main building project was in operation.

It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.

Just what we don't need. Some GM with zero idea of Masonic history and tradition messing with what works. (Sound track here has a raspberry sound).