In the first four parts of this series, I argued that most American lodges did not simply lose their financial strength when they lost members. We gave much of it away. We froze dues while wages and operating costs climbed, stripped most of the financial weight from joining, and trained ourselves to survive without margin.

After publishing those pieces, one thought kept bothering me. I had written a great deal about the money lodges failed to collect, but not enough about the Brothers who quietly made up the difference.

Cheap dues are not actually cheap.

The cost does not disappear because the lodge votes not to collect it. It changes form. It shows up in Saturdays surrendered to another fundraiser, in exhaustion, in roofs that leak five years earlier than they should, in programs that never happen, and in widows we wish we could help more meaningfully. Most often, it is paid by good Brothers who quietly burn out while everyone else enjoys an inexpensive dues card.

Cheap dues do not eliminate the cost of Masonry.

They hide it.

If you want to find that hidden cost, do not start with the lodge bank account. Start with the calendar of the Brother who always says yes.

The Faithful Brother Tax

The cheapest dues in the district may be paid for by the most expensive men in the lodge.

Imagine a lodge with seventy members debating whether to raise dues by one hundred dollars.

The increase sounds enormous from the East. Men shift in their seats. Someone points out that the lodge down the road charges less. Someone else warns that Brothers will demit. The proposal fails, and everyone leaves believing they saved the membership a great deal of money.

Spread across the year, each Brother kept $1.92 per week. The lodge gave up $7,000 per year.

The need has not vanished, so the same ten men organize another fundraiser. They buy, cook, sell, set up, clean up, and surrender another Saturday with their families so seventy men can save less than two dollars a week.

The Treasurer’s report will show that the fundraiser was a success. It will not contain a line for whose life was spent earning the money.

I am not opposed to fundraisers. A good dinner, car show, or community event can build fellowship and visibility. But it should extend the mission, not make up the difference between what the lodge costs and what its members are willing to pay.

This is the hidden structure beneath cheap dues. Every member receives the discount, but a small core of active Brothers pays for it with time and labor.

The inactive member pays the cheap dues.

The active Brother pays the cheap dues, then mows the lawn, plows the snow, cooks the meals, repairs the plumbing, serves on the Temple Board, fills an empty chair, and comes back Saturday to run the fundraiser.

We call both men members in good standing.

Financially, they are not standing in the same place.

One is being subsidized by the other.

That raises a harder question than what we charge for dues. When does Masonic service stop being a gift and become the lodge’s business model?

The Brother Who Wore Out Three Mowers

A Brother at my lodge wore out three riding mowers keeping our grounds maintained.

My lodge sits in the country on ten acres that were once hayfields. Today we have a large front lawn for car shows and family events, with roughly seven acres still taken off as hay.

For literal decades, one Brother handled nearly all of it.

He mowed the front grounds, cut the back lot, and kept whatever hay came off it, perhaps a few hundred dollars’ worth in a good year. He was never otherwise compensated. Over the years, he says he wore out three riding mowers on the lodge lawn.

Then winter came, as it tends to do for roughly half the year in the Upper Peninsula.

That same Brother kept our 600 foot driveway and parking lot open through the twelve feet or so of snow we receive in an average year, allowing us and the Masonic ladies organization in our building to meet all winter.

He did it happily. Most dependable Brothers do. He saw work that needed to be done and took care of it.

But his willingness did not make the work free.

Replacing that work commercially would cost thousands every year. Basic plowing alone would have cost about $3,120 after last year’s thirteen feet of snow. Add mowing a multi acre lawn several times a month, then haying, fuel, repairs, equipment wear, and the value of his time. The few hundred dollars in hay barely moves the calculation.

For years, none of that appeared in our budget.

We had turned a Brother’s generosity into a permanent line item with a zero beside it.

Eventually, age and changing circumstances caught up with the arrangement. When he could no longer continue, the expense arrived as an emergency. We scrambled to cover the mowing and snow removal. It required a lodge vote on higher dues and a Temple Board vote to increase the rent paid by the Masonic bodies using the building.

That should have been the moment we fully priced the work.

It was not. The hidden subsidy simply changed hands.

The Volunteer Relay

When one dependable Brother finally steps away, the work rarely disappears. It lands on the next dependable Brother.

For the first couple of years afterward, two Brothers trailered their own riding mowers to the lodge three or four times a month and spent about four hours cutting the grass. Before hauling, fuel, maintenance, or repairs, they were already giving well over a hundred combined hours each mowing season.

Then one of them burned out.

For the next few years, a single Brother kept trailering his mower over and doing the work. Eventually, he came to the lodge and pleaded for someone else to help him.

That moment matters. Most men like him never ask. They suffer quietly until age, illness, family, resentment, or a broken machine makes the decision for them.

I eventually donated a riding mower that could stay at the lodge. That solved the hauling problem. It did not solve the labor problem.

Even today, Brothers still have to volunteer every week to keep the grass cut. If those men disappeared tomorrow, the lodge would immediately have to absorb the commercial cost. We still are not priced for it.

The snow tells the same story.

Last year, our Lodge Treasurer, a mechanic who is also involved in tractor pulls, rebuilt an antique tractor, bought it a snowblower, added power steering, and committed himself to keeping the property clear. He has invested thousands of his own dollars and hours so the lodge would not have to.

He understands the numbers better than almost anyone in the building. Even with the highest dues in our district, our budget could not sustain the full commercial cost of an Upper Peninsula winter.

The names changed. The equipment changed. The hidden subsidy did not. We simply watched the same expense pass from one set of shoulders to another.

Their generosity was real. Our mistake was treating it as guaranteed.

That is how a lodge stops owning a building and starts being owned by it.

Every dollar and every willing Brother gets consumed by grass, snow, roofs, furnaces, and parking lots. The building was supposed to house the work. Instead, maintaining the building becomes the work.

At that point, you no longer have a Masonic lodge with real estate. You have a property maintenance club that occasionally practices Masonry.

When Service Becomes a Business Model

A Brother may volunteer his own labor. A lodge should not volunteer it for him.

Freemasonry should ask men to serve. A Brother should sometimes trade comfort for duty and contribute without expecting compensation. But the lodge cannot build its financial model around the assumption that he will keep doing it forever. His gift should free money for education, relief, fellowship, or future improvements. It should not be the only reason the lodge can afford to function.

Volunteer labor should create margin.

It should not be the margin.

We have a habit in Masonry of calling certain men pillars of the lodge. Usually, we mean they are dependable. They know what needs to be done, and they do it before anyone asks.

But sometimes we have not made them pillars.

We have made them load bearing.

Then one of them gets sick, moves away, burns out, or dies, and the lodge suddenly discovers that what looked like a healthy institution was actually one tired man holding up a corner of the roof.

A Brother is not a financial plan.

When that Brother can no longer carry the weight, the bill does not disappear. It gets forwarded to men who have not even petitioned yet.

The Invoices We Send Into the Future

Deferred maintenance is not savings. It is an invoice addressed to a future Brother.

These costs are easy to ignore because they arrive years after the vote that created them. The lodge patches the roof, nurses the furnace through another winter, and lets the parking lot crumble slowly enough that nobody has to call it an emergency this year.

We describe that as saving money. We congratulate ourselves for balancing the annual budget without admitting that we balanced it by allowing the building to lose value.

It is debt.

The roof, furnace, carpet, and parking lot are still issuing invoices. They simply have not mailed them yet. Every year we underfund their replacement, we send a larger bill to the Brothers who come after us. They inherit a crisis we spent years creating, then hear that nobody could have seen it coming.

Cheap dues make the present feel affordable by making the future more expensive.

That is not thrift. It is the opposite of stewardship.

Our founders bought land, raised buildings, and accumulated assets they knew they would not live long enough to fully enjoy. They spent their money to give us a head start.

Too often, we spend as little as possible and leave the next generation a rescue mission.

But broken buildings are only the costs we can eventually see. The larger losses are the things an underfunded lodge never gets far enough to attempt.

The Cost of What Never Happens

A lodge can balance its books and still go bankrupt in imagination. The hardest costs to measure are the things it never attempts.

There is the speaker we never invite, the education program we never build, and the family event we keep discussing. There is the quality meal that becomes another potluck, the new Brother who receives a cheap apron and a handshake because that is all his fee will cover, and the widow whose need is larger than the amount we can collect by passing a hat.

None of those appear as losses on a financial statement because the money was never spent.

But the lodge is still poorer for their absence.

A lodge in survival mode eventually loses more than purchasing power. It loses imagination. Men stop bringing forward ambitious ideas because they already know the first question.

Can we afford it?

After enough years, they stop asking. They learn to plan within the boundaries of scarcity. They forget that the lodge was once capable of building things, shaping men, supporting families, and becoming a visible force in its community.

The most expensive thing a lodge can lose is not money.

It is the belief that it can act.

Once that belief is gone, lowering the dues does not make Masonry more accessible. It only makes a diminished lodge easier to afford.

Accessibility Requires Strength

Cheap dues feel compassionate right up until a Brother actually needs help.

Whenever I make this argument, somebody asks about the young father, the retired Brother, or the working man already stretched thin. They should. Any financial model with no answer for those men is unworthy of a fraternity. But keeping dues artificially low for everyone leaves the lodge less capable when real need appears.

An underfunded lodge cannot buy the young father a suit, carry the retired Brother through a difficult year, feed a family in crisis, or support a widow without announcing her need and passing a basket.

Low dues treat every man as though he needs the lowest possible price, then leave the lodge too weak to meaningfully help the man who actually does.

The Owosso lodge I described in Part 3 offers a better answer. It maintains a substantial expectation while remaining flexible about how an individual Brother satisfies it. A man with money can write the check. A man with time can create measurable value. A Brother facing real hardship can be carried without lowering the standard for everyone.

Hidden labor is taken for granted. Recognized labor is credited.

One exploits the faithful. The other gives every Brother a dignified way to contribute.

High expectations require high support.

Once we admit that, we arrive at the question lodges have avoided for generations. What should membership honestly cost?

Paying the Honest Price

Before a lodge can set the right price, it has to tell the truth about what it is offering.

None of this produces a magic number. I am not arguing that every lodge should charge $1,700, or that a finance committee should choose an impressive figure and force it through a vote. Nor can a lodge keep offering the same lukewarm coffee, empty calendar, and monthly argument over the utility bill, then simply demand more money for it.

The price has to be tied to the mission.

A lodge has to decide what it is trying to provide and what it expects from its members. It has to know what its building truly costs, what labor it currently receives for free, what obligations it is sending into the future, and how much margin it needs to build rather than merely survive.

Then it must put the honest number on the table.

That number may be uncomfortable. Honest accounting has a way of exposing how much of our fraternity has been carried by exhausted Brothers, inherited assets, and repairs we have not made yet.

But at least the discomfort will be shared.

Before the next dues debate, take the money your lodge has decided not to collect and trace where it went. Find the Brother mowing, cooking, patching, cleaning, and fundraising. Find the repair pushed into another year, the family event trimmed down again, and the program quietly abandoned. The difference is being paid somewhere.

Cheap dues are financed by tired men, neglected buildings, diminished expectations, and future Brothers who will inherit the bill. They reward absence and tax participation. They make the most faithful men pay twice, once with their money and again with their lives.

The question is not whether the lodge will pay its full cost.

It will.

The only question is whether every Brother will share that cost honestly today, or whether we will keep sending the invoice to the same few men and call the arrangement brotherhood.

-Brother Rob

Share

The Properly Pricing the Dues Series

Part 1: The Myth of Membership Decline

Part 2: The Friction of Entry

Part 3: Pricing the Current Reality

Part 4: The Taking on Water Calculation

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

Subscribe now

An event we had last month for our families. It was well attended and has been growing every year. Potluck sides and desserts, lodge covered meat and drinks and two bounce houses.

Two recent conversations proved this to me, from entirely different ends of the Masonic experience.

A man reached out to me recently. Years ago, he became an Entered Apprentice. He had just returned from Iraq, his life was falling apart, and he was struggling badly with alcohol. At one point, he needed somewhere to stay.

A Brother took him in. He didn’t ask if the young man had earned it or had his life figured out. He saw a Brother who needed help, and he provided it.

Shortly afterward, the young EA left town. He never finished his degrees. Years passed.

Today, that man has been sober for nearly a decade.

He has built distance between himself and the hardest period of his life. He remembers the Brother who helped him. He remembers the kindness. For years, he has wanted to reach back out. But he hesitates. Alongside the gratitude is shame. He remembers who he was then. He remembers his behavior. He wonders what that Brother must think of him.

I told him something that is obvious from the outside: He is judging himself far more harshly than that Brother ever did.

If we treated other people the way we treat ourselves, we would be in prison. We grant other people context. We look at a man and think: He was young. He had just come back from war. He was struggling.

But when the person in question is us, context disappears. We turn our past mistakes into hard evidence. We take the worst season of our lives and quietly sentence ourselves to being that man forever.

Meanwhile, the Brother who gave him a place to stay remembers a young man in need. Hearing, “Brother, I have been sober for ten years, and I never forgot what you did for me,” would be one of the best phone calls he has received in his life.

I encouraged him to make it. That Brother deserves to know his kindness mattered. And the man he helped deserves to discover that the door he fears opens easily from the other side.

Shame builds one kind of heavy door. Time builds another.

The second conversation was about a third-generation Mason, a Past Master of my own lodge. He was prominent in my raising. But he has not been to lodge in years.

A mutual friend encouraged him to come back. His answer was hard to hear. With real emotion, he said that all the faces were different now. He did not know anybody anymore.

I understand that. We treat a lodge like it is just a room. But a man remembers particular voices. Particular handshakes. The man who coached him. The men who were young alongside him, and the older men he assumed would somehow always be there.

Then he comes back twenty years later and discovers time kept moving while he was gone. Men moved. Men died. New men came through the door and built memories of their own.

When we tell an absent Brother, “Nothing has changed, come on back,” we tell him something he knows is false. Things have changed. The faces really are different. But we emphasize the wrong thing.

A few days after that conversation, we learned this same Past Master had been hospitalized with cancer, three hours away from our lodge. By coincidence, one of our newer Brothers happened to be in that same city. He had never met this Past Master in his life. But when he learned a Brother from our lodge was lying in that hospital, he insisted on going to see him.

Put those two realities side by side.

“I don’t know anybody there anymore.”

And somewhere three hours away:

“I don’t know him, but he’s my Brother. I’m going to see him.”

That is the answer. Brother, you might not recognize the faces anymore. But they know what you are. There are men sitting in the lodge today who do not know your stories. They cannot remember the lodge as you remember it, because they had not even arrived yet.

But some of them will still drive across town to your hospital room simply because somebody told them a Brother is there.

We spend a lot of time talking about inactive members. We count them, look at rosters, and wonder why they stopped coming. But a membership roster makes absence look simple. A man appears on a spreadsheet as “inactive” while carrying an entire private argument about whether he is still welcome.

From inside the lodge, we see a wooden door with a handle. From outside, he sees ten years of absence, guilt, unfamiliarity, unfinished business, and an explanation he thinks he owes everyone in the room.

Every year he stays gone, the door gets a little heavier.

That is why simply saying “the door is always open” fails. A heavy door needs someone to open it. Sometimes a Brother inside must walk outside, pick up the phone, and push it open for him.

And if you are the Brother standing outside that door, carrying ten years of your own judgment, understand something. The fraternity does not keep score on absence. You have changed. The lodge has changed. The men inside have changed. But the brotherhood remains.

The Entered Apprentice does not need to become the man he was all those years ago to call the Brother who helped him. He gets to call as the man he became. The Past Master does not need to walk back into the lodge of twenty years ago. He gets to walk into the lodge that exists today. And the Brothers there get the privilege of knowing him now.

A man can disappear for years. Life can beat him up. He can lose his way. He can convince himself that too much time has passed. And somewhere, on the other side of that impossibly heavy door, a Brother is still standing there, saying:

Come in. We’ve got a seat for you.

-Brother Rob

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

Subscribe now

Share

Come for a visit!

You need to know exactly what it costs to keep your ship afloat.

Most lodges calculate their dues by looking at what they charged last year, looking at what the lodge down the road charges, and arguing about whether the members will tolerate another twenty dollars.

That is not financial planning. That is guessing.

If you want to have a real financial conversation in your lodge, you have to find your economic baseline. Historically, the American Masonic standard was straightforward: one week’s wages for annual dues, and one month’s wages for the initiation fees.

Look at the national average. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median earnings for full-time working men in the United States is roughly $71,000 annually.

If an average American lodge strictly applied the historical financial filter today, the baseline would look like this:

• Annual Dues (1 Week): $1,380

• First-Year Total (1 Month): $5,980

If those numbers make you instinctively recoil, you are proving the point. We spent a century making the Craft cheap, and now the actual cost of operating a permanent institution feels offensive to us.

To find out exactly how much margin your specific lodge has surrendered, you have to build your own local baseline.

Pull the minute book from your founding year. Write down the dues and degree fees. Use an inflation calculator to see what those old dollars are worth today. Then, look up the median individual income for your specific county. Divide that by 52 to get your target weekly dues, and divide it by 12 to get your target monthly degree fees.

Put those numbers on a piece of paper. Set it on the table at your next finance meeting. Let the Brothers look at what the founders demanded, compared to the hundred bucks you charge today.

The conversation changes immediately.

Then, you have to audit your actual expenses. And I don’t just mean the utility bills.

The biggest lie on a lodge balance sheet is deferred maintenance. It is a massive problem for nonprofits everywhere. We put off the expensive repairs because we don’t have the cash, and we pretend the building is fine.

Look at your building. If you put a new roof on it that costs $25,000, and it has a 20-year lifespan, you are consuming $1,250 of that roof every single year. You need to put $1,250 into an untouchable savings category annually just to replace it when it fails. Now do the furnace. The carpet. The parking lot.

If you aren’t factoring the depreciation of your building into your annual budget, you aren’t breaking even. You are slowly cannibalizing your property.

Next, you have to stop pricing in volunteer burnout.

We survive on the backs of a few dedicated Brothers. Someone mows the lawn. Someone plows the snow. Someone paints the dining room. Because they do it for free, we don’t put it in the budget.

Volunteers burn out. They get sick. They move.

Calculate exactly how much it would cost to hire commercial contractors for your lawn, snow, and maintenance. Put that number in your budget. If a Brother steps up and volunteers to plow the snow, great. Save the cash. But you cannot count on free labor to keep your lodge solvent. When you price your dues around free labor, you are essentially taxing that Brother’s time to subsidize everyone else’s dues.

Add up everything else. Taxes. Insurance. Liability coverage.

Now, look at what you spend on actual Masonry.

Look at your programs. What are you doing for your Brothers? Are you funding education? Bringing in speakers? Taking care of widows? Or do you have to run an emergency pancake breakfast just to afford the annual installation dinner?

When you do the math, the likelihood is high that 80 percent of your expenses go entirely toward maintaining an empty clubhouse, and almost nothing goes toward programs, meals, or education that your members actually benefit from.

Admitting that out loud is the first step. Thanks, Bill W.

Take that final, massive number, the utilities, the sinking fund for the roof, the commercial maintenance rates, the insurance, and the programs you actually want to run. Divide that total by your number of dues-paying members.

Bingo.

That is your minimum dues baseline. Anything less than that number, and your lodge is taking on water. Some lodges are sinking slowly. Some are sinking quickly. But if your dues are below that line, you are sinking.

Once you fix the dues, you have to look at the initiation fees.

If you are going to charge a man a substantial fee to join, you have to hand him substantial value. You cannot charge him hundreds of dollars and then hand him a twenty-dollar apron and a firm handshake.

I recently looked at the financial breakdown of an incredibly well-run lodge in East Lansing. They charge $200 for their Entered Apprentice degree, but they make sure the candidate feels the weight of that investment immediately.

When a man pays his fee, the lodge buys him a high-quality leather apron, a customized apron briefcase to carry it in, a printed educational binder, Introduction to Freemasonry by Carl Claudy, The Newly Made Mason by H.L. Haywood, a custom name badge, and a specific lapel pin.

The lodge spends $174 out of that $200 fee strictly on tangible items that go directly into the candidate’s hands.

They repeat the process for every degree. They demand a financial sacrifice, and they return it in heavy, tangible, educational value. The Brother knows exactly what he paid for, and the lodge equips him to actually understand the fraternity he just joined.

There is a final, unexpected benefit to this entire process.

It is going to be painful.

Running a true financial audit is heavy. Calculating depreciation, sinking funds, and the real cost of survival is complicated. It forces a room full of men to look at uncomfortable truths, admit they have been underpricing their own value, and make difficult decisions about the future.

But here is the reality. Most of the men sitting in your lodge have never run this kind of evaluation on their own households.

Most families don’t calculate sinking funds for their own roofs. They don’t budget for the depreciation of their own vehicles. They live paycheck to paycheck, reacting to emergencies as they happen, guessing at their financial future.

When you bring this level of financial rigor into the lodge, you are doing much more than fixing a spreadsheet.

You are teaching men how to think about money.

You are teaching them the difference between surviving and building margin. You are showing them how to plan twenty years ahead instead of waiting for the furnace to break and passing a hat.

Freemasonry claims to take good men and make them better. We usually think that happens exclusively through ritual and moral instruction. But sometimes it happens by sitting around a table and forcing each other to look at the math.

If you guide your lodge through this evaluation, you will stabilize your charter. But you will also send your members back to their families smarter, sharper, and more prepared to govern their own lives.

That is what applied Masonic education looks like.

-Brother Rob

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

Subscribe now

Share

Just for fun, here’s a poster for next month’s car show. If you want to drive to the UP of Michigan, some of us pitch tents or bring RV’s to lodge the night before and make it a weekend.

You tell him that a founding-era Brother surrendered nearly a full month of his earning power to join Bethel Lodge, and that annual dues required almost a week of hard labor. You map that onto our modern economy, showing that a true historical equivalent would mean a thousand dollars for the degrees and nearly eight hundred dollars a year just to keep a dues card.

He will scoff. He will tell you that if we charged those prices today, every man in the room would walk out the door and turn the lights off behind him.

And he is absolutely right.

When a Brother hears those numbers, he instantly applies them to his current lodge experience. He runs a rapid calculation in his head. He pictures the lukewarm coffee. He pictures sitting on a folding chair for forty-five minutes listening to the Secretary read the minutes from last month, followed by a ten-minute debate over a two-hundred-dollar plumbing bill, followed by a motion to adjourn.

He prices that exact experience. He concludes, accurately, that the experience he is currently receiving is not worth a thousand dollars.

Frankly, in many lodges, it isn’t worth the hundred and fifteen dollars they were already paying.

The resistance we hit when we talk about restoring our financial foundations is based on value, not just money. We have spent decades training our members to expect very little, and we priced the experience accordingly. If we demand a massive sacrifice without fundamentally changing the product, of course they will leave.

But that raises an uncomfortable question.

There is a version of a Masonic lodge that is worth a heavy financial sacrifice. What would that lodge have to look like? What would it do? What would it demand of you, and what would it give you in return?

Let me tell you the story of a friend’s lodge in Owosso, Michigan.

Their lodge charges $1,700 a year in dues.

That number shocked me the first time I heard it. Seventeen hundred dollars. For a lodge with about 56 dues-”paying” members. I immediately started asking questions, trying to figure out what could possibly justify that kind of individual burden.

They occupy a five-story building in downtown Owosso. It isn’t just a room that gets unlocked twice a month for stated meetings. It is a fraternal home. It has a dining hall, a commercial kitchen, social rooms, offices, a library, a podcast room, and spaces designed simply for Brothers to exist together.

Years ago, the lodge had sold the building. Eventually, an opportunity arose to buy it back. They knew it needed work. They knew they were taking on substantial debt. They took the risk and bought it anyway, raising their dues to cover the financial weight.

Then, they paid the debt off in about a year.

That was the moment that completely changed how I understood their model. The building no longer cost them $1,700 per member to maintain. The debt that drove the dues increase had vanished.

The dues stayed.

At first, that feels wrong to our modern, survival-wired Masonic brains. Why keep charging the men if the crisis has passed? Then I realized what they had actually built. I mentioned it in part 1.

Margin.

A lodge operating on the razor’s edge of its income spends all its energy on mere survival. Owosso can maintain a five-story building without every repair threatening to bankrupt the year. More importantly, they can fund the experience of actually being a Freemason.

When their Brothers travel to other lodges, they wear matching black suits. It is effectively their lodge uniform. When a new Master Mason is raised in their lodge, the lodge buys him a brand-new suit.

They set a high standard, and then they financially support their Brothers in meeting it.

High expectations. High support.

Because they have margin, they don’t have to pass the hat every time someone has a good idea. They travel. They host incredible events. Once a year, they shut down a portion of downtown Owosso for New Year’s Eve. They host fires, vendors, a ball drop, and fireworks. The lodge is visible. It is a pillar of its community, operating from a position of absolute strength.

Most importantly, they are thinking forty years ahead. They are collecting money today to build a lodge for men who haven’t even been born yet.

The immediate pushback to hearing “$1,700 dues” always centers on the young dad or the working guy. People assume they are just building a country club for rich men.

That misses the best part of their culture.

Their obligation is substantial, but their methods of satisfying it are entirely flexible.

A Brother who can write the check, writes the check. A Brother who does not have $1,700 in cash can create value for the lodge in other ways. If he chairs a fundraiser, the money generated by his work is credited against his dues. They even have a partnership selling high-quality, Masonically branded candles (the tobacco-cherry one is fantastic). A Brother can sell those candles and apply 100 percent of what he raises against his dues obligation.

The principle is simple. You owe something significant to this lodge. That something does not always have to arrive as a check from your bank account.

It can be effort. It can be time. It can be hustle.

If a Brother is engaged, contributing, and genuinely struggling, the lodge has the financial capacity to carry him. They don’t lower the standard for everyone; they maintain the standard, and they help the individual Brother reach it.

Sweat creates value. Money creates value. Both are recognized.

That is what a high-value lodge looks like. It is a fraternity built around a mission, not a mission squeezed into whatever is left over from a hundred-dollar dues check.

When the men of Bethel Lodge set our fees in 1882, they were operating on the Owosso mindset. They built a financial wall that required a month of labor because they were guarding something incredibly valuable. They intended to build a permanent institution, and they demanded that the men joining it prove their commitment.

We spent the next hundred and forty years lowering the price, hoping that making it cheaper would make it more popular. We sacrificed margin for accessibility. We pulled the friction out of the West Gate.

And in the process, we accidentally stripped the value right out of the room.

If we want Brothers to stop scoffing at the idea of a meaningful financial commitment, we have to stop offering them an experience that isn’t worth the sacrifice. We have to decide what version of this Craft is actually worth a month of a man’s life.

Then, we have to build it.

-Brother Rob

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

Subscribe now

Share

We talk endlessly about how to get men through the West Gate. We debate marketing, community presence, and how to make the lodge more accessible. But as I kept digging through Bethel Lodge’s historical records, a second mathematical reality emerged from the archives. And it explains our modern struggles even better than the collapse of our annual dues.

The cost of entering the lodge dropped even faster than the cost of maintaining it.

In 1882, Bethel (my home lodge) charged ten dollars for each of the three degrees. Thirty dollars total. To a modern ear, that sounds like spare change. But when you measure that thirty dollars against the earning power of a working man in the 1880s, it was an economic wall.

Using a near-contemporary Michigan working-man benchmark, earning that thirty dollars required approximately 164 hours of physical labor.

Nearly three full weeks of work. Just to receive the degrees.

When you add the twelve dollars for his first year of dues, a new Mason in 1882 was surrendering nearly an entire month of his livelihood to become part of this fraternity. That is a heavy sacrifice. It required a conversation with his family. It required discipline.

For a long time, I assumed our fees naturally drifted down against inflation over the decades. But they didn’t drift. We intentionally anchored them to the floor.

For decades, right through the massive economic shifts of the mid-twentieth century, through the inflation of the 1970s and 1980s, and all the way into the 1990s, our fee for the degrees sat exactly where it was. Twenty-five dollars a degree. Seventy-five dollars total.

When we finally did increase the fee in the 1990s, we didn’t do it to restore the value of the experience. We added a single twenty-five-dollar charge to the Entered Apprentice degree for one specific reason: to cover the cost of a background check.

We didn’t raise the barrier. We just passed along a receipt.

Think about what that collapse does to the psychology of a candidate.

In 1882, a man surrendered 164 hours of his life to stand in the Northeast Corner. He decided the mysteries of Freemasonry were worth the sweat of his brow. Because of that friction, he approached the altar with reverence. He paid attention. He expected something substantial in return, and the men conferring the degree knew they had to deliver an experience worthy of his sacrifice.

Today, our three degrees cost a total of $200. Using our modern county income benchmark, that represents about ten hours of work.

We took an experience that used to require nearly a month of labor, and we discounted it to the equivalent of a single Tuesday at the office.

We removed the friction.

Friction is a filter. When you make entry cheap, you make it casual. When a man pays for his degrees with a rounding error in his monthly budget, it is incredibly easy for him to walk away when he gets bored, when he gets busy, or when the lodge fails to immediately entertain him. He has no real equity in the institution.

We stopped asking men to prove they valued the Craft before we gave it to them. By asking for almost nothing, we inadvertently signaled to generations of candidates that what we were guarding wasn’t particularly valuable.

The financial decline of our lodges is a serious problem. The psychological decline of our initiatic experience is worse.

We have to ask ourselves what we are actually trying to achieve. Are we trying to remove every possible barrier so nobody ever says no? Or are we trying to guard an experience that is genuinely worth bleeding for?

A fraternity that asks nothing of its candidates should not be surprised when those candidates eventually give nothing to the fraternity. We pulled the friction out of the system in the name of accessibility, and we robbed the degrees of their weight.

It is time to put the weight back.

-Brother Rob

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We talk a lot about the membership crisis in Freemasonry. At my own lodge we have lived it. We had over 400 members in the 1950s and 60s. Today, we have 72. It is incredibly easy to look at our modern budgets, feel the constant financial friction, and blame the entire problem on headcount. Fewer men means less money. It is the most common excuse in the fraternity, and it makes perfect logical sense.

It is also a mathematical illusion.

I started digging into the historical relationship between our lodge’s revenue and the local economy of my town. I wasn’t just looking at what we charged; I wanted to know what those charges actually meant to the men paying them.

I’ve written about this before but it bears revisiting, historically, Masonic financial structures operated on a brilliant, proportional standard. Though not named in exactly this way it seems fairly universal that a man paid roughly one month’s wages for his initiation fees, split across the three degrees. To keep the lodge operating, he paid roughly one week’s wages in annual dues. It was a standard of shared sacrifice.

I applied that exact benchmark to my county, adjusting the historical data to isolate the average income of a single working adult in each decade. I wanted to see how the financial sacrifice of a Brother in 1960 compared to a Brother in 2026.

The numbers completely and predictably shatter the story many have been telling themselves.

In 1960, the economic benchmark for one week of adult income in our county was roughly $66. Our membership was robust, the economy was booming, and lodges were commanding massive operational power. By the 1970s, that one-week benchmark climbed to $96. With over 400 members, that represented the modern equivalent of a massive corporate budget. It was enough capital to maintain infrastructure, fund robust charity, and host exceptional events without ever passing a hat.

Then the economy shifted. Inflation rose. Wages rose. Everything around us became more expensive.

And the lodge flinched.

Between 1980 and 2000, the cost of living skyrocketed, but our lodge, like thousands of others across the country, chose to decouple its dues from economic reality. We froze our prices to keep men from leaving. By the year 2000, our dues were sitting at $106.50.

The one-week income benchmark for an adult in our county was $404.

We had dropped our required sacrifice to a quarter of its historical standard. Ten years later, in 2010, the benchmark rose to $488. Our dues remained exactly $106.50. By 2020, the benchmark hit $737. Our dues had bravely climbed to $115.

For twenty years, the cost of electricity changed. Heating costs changed. Insurance changed. Food changed. Building materials changed. The cost of operating an institution in Sault Ste. Marie doubled.

Our dues moved eight dollars and fifty cents.

Once you see the math, you realize that our financial strain is not simply a product of losing members. It is a product of deliberate institutional starvation. By artificially suppressing our dues out of fear, we effectively volunteered for a massive pay cut on top of the headcount drop.

When you calculate the gap between what we actually charged and what the historical one-week standard dictated, the compounding loss is staggering. Between the year 2000 and 2020 alone, my lodge failed to capture an estimated 1.4 million dollars in operating capital.

One point four million dollars.

Think about what a lodge does with 1.4 million dollars over twenty years. Think about the maintenance that doesn’t get deferred. Think about the community impact, the quality of the candidate experience, the meals, the travel, the assistance to widows.

Instead, we chose survival mode.

A lodge with enough revenue to cover only its immediate expenses spends all of its energy surviving the present. Every broken furnace is a crisis. Every proposed program is a financial debate. When a lodge is starved for capital, every single idea immediately faces the same exhausting question.

Can we afford it?

In 2026, We finally made a significant correction (I wrote about it at the time), raising dues to $250. It felt like a massive, heavy increase to us because we were comparing it to the $115 we charged before. But when you compare it to the local economy, the picture looks very different. Today, the one-week income benchmark in Chippewa County is roughly $780.

Our $250 dues represent just 32 percent of the historical standard.

If all 72 of our members pay $250, the lodge grosses $18,000 this year. If we charged the historical baseline of $780, that exact same membership roster would gross over $56,000.

I am not suggesting we instantly raise our dues to $780. What interests me is the empty space between those two numbers.

Thirty-eight thousand dollars a year.

That space is called margin. Margin is the difference between surviving and building. Margin means you don’t have to choose between keeping the lights on and doing excellent ritual work. It means you can invest in the man moving through the degrees. It means you can afford to try something new, and you can afford to fail.

A lodge with margin gets to ask a completely different question.

Should we do it?

The men who built our fraternity in 1882 did not build it by asking how cheaply they could survive the winter. They bought land. They built substantial buildings. They accumulated assets. They spent money on things they would never personally use long enough to receive a return on the investment.

They were thinking twenty years out.

Forty years out.

They built margin for us, giving the future a head start. And somewhere along the way, we inherited what they built and completely changed the mandate. Instead of asking what we should build for the Brothers who will inherit this lodge in 2066, we started asking how cheaply we could maintain what the Brothers from 1882 left behind.

Those are entirely different ideas of stewardship.

We speak about Freemasonry in enormous, sweeping terms. We talk about it as an institution worth preserving, a lifelong journey of character, and a profound brotherhood. Then, we price a year of membership below what a man casually spends on his morning stop for coffee or energy drinks in a single month, terrified that asking for more will drive him away.

Money represents our value system.

If we truly believe that this Craft is one of the most valuable things in our lives, our financial structure has to reflect that. We cannot build a fraternity for the next generation on the spare change of this one.

The time is overdue, stop apologizing for what it costs to build something great.

-Brother Rob

Robert W. Linn
Writer of Square Thoughts

Essays on Freemasonry, leadership, and the work of building institutions that last. Explore my books at Bosley Press.

Instagram · TikTok · Facebook · YouTube

Stay in the work

.

Subscribe now

Share

It took about two days for the crazies to show up. In the comments I am a member of a satanic cult and I need to repent and give my heart to Jesus. Meanwhile, in my DMs, a brother wrote to tell me he feels excluded from his own lodge because he is not an evangelical Christian, and that his lodge told him if they had known, they would have blackballed him. His words, not mine: they are basically an evangelical Christian cult. Same fraternity, same week, accused of being two opposite cults at once.

One exchange ran long enough to be worth sharing, so I figured, why keep all the fun to myself. The gentleman’s screen name is redacted because he is not the point. I hope I represented myself and the Craft with compassion and curiosity, and without falling victim to my own zeal for the institution. Judge for yourself.

Commenter:

Who are you making famous?

Square Thoughts:

me? nobody? I dont understand your question, though you seem to have an agenda.

Commenter:

If you were talking to a Christian, what would you say Freemasonry has to offer over following Jesus?

Square Thoughts:

You know this is a false choice. Freemasonry has never claimed to offer anything “over following Jesus.” It is a fraternity, not a religion, and makes no claim to salvation.

You have built a following by calling yourself a former Mason, so I have to assume you understand that. If so, this is not an honest question. You are deliberately comparing two things that serve entirely different purposes because the caricature makes better content.

Freemasonry concerns itself with a man’s character, conduct, fellowship, and service. It leaves salvation and theology to his faith. Either your experience was too limited to understand that, or you understand it perfectly well and choose to misrepresent it. Neither lends much credibility to the “former Mason exposes Freemasonry” brand.

Commenter:

You said you’re a Christian. The great commission says make disciples. Seems like you’re too busy making Mason’s and making Freemason famous.

Square Thoughts:

I understand why the Great Commission matters to you. It matters to me too. But you know only what I discuss on this particular page, not the full measure of my faith, service, or witness.

A Christian can speak about his family, profession, community, or fraternity without placing any of them above Christ. I do not recruit men into Masonry. My purpose here is to speak honestly about a fraternity I love and hope to improve.

I would gently point out that your own platform also centers heavily on Freemasonry, only from the opposing perspective. Perhaps neither of us should presume to judge the other’s entire Christian walk through the narrow window of TikTok. I wish you well.

Commenter:

So you’re telling me that fellowship, friendship is exclusive to secret societies. You have to go through some crazy ritual, but you never answered the question. What moral lesson does Freemasonry provide tha Jesus can’t. You are the one who’s doing a false equivalent. You can’t separate the king of the universe from his creation. It’s useless no nonsense.

Square Thoughts:

No, I did not say fellowship or friendship is exclusive to Freemasonry, nor did I claim Masonry teaches some moral truth unavailable through Jesus. That is precisely the false choice I have been pointing out.

Christianity also teaches charity, discipline, service, and brotherly love. That does not make churches, schools, recovery groups, civic organizations, or fraternities useless. They provide different communities in which people can practice those virtues.

Freemasonry does not complete Jesus, improve upon Jesus, or compete with Jesus. It is simply one setting in which men encourage one another to live morally and serve others. You are free to believe it is unnecessary, but please respond to what I actually said rather than assigning claims to me that I never made.

Commenter:

As a Christian and someone who says they follow Jesus, how can you put your hands in the Bible and swear to cut my throat out because I told a secret password of a useless rebellious club. Do you think Jesus would want you to do that? tell the world what you did to become a Mason and let them judge. Oh, you can’t because you took an oath on the Bible to keep their secrets.

Square Thoughts:

I can tell the world what happened without betraying any confidence. I petitioned freely, was investigated and elected, then participated in ceremonies using allegory to teach integrity, charity, mortality, and service.

I never swore to cut your throat or harm anyone for revealing a password. No Mason is instructed or authorized to punish another Mason. The historical penalty language is symbolic, expressing the seriousness of one’s promise. It is not a threat or command, and many jurisdictions have removed it entirely.

What I keep private are certain modes of recognition and portions of the ceremonies, not theology, criminal behavior, or some hidden plan. I honor that promise for the same reason I would protect a friend’s confidence: because keeping my word matters.

You may sincerely reject our ceremonies. But portraying symbolic language as a vow to commit violence is a serious misrepresentation, and someone claiming firsthand experience should know the difference.

Commenter:

The local church was Jesus’s plan a. He has no Plan B. What free masonry does is make a separate body that basically does the same thing as the church. Once again, why do you need a secret society to have friends? Jesus didn’t have any secret rituals for his apostles or his church?

Square Thoughts:

You are welcome in my comments, and I genuinely enjoy a good tête-à-tête. But this exchange also illustrates the point of my video.

The overzealous certainty and repeated misrepresentation of things anyone can verify using the supercomputer in his pocket are exactly why many people are leaving communities that speak and reason this way. Zeal without curiosity too easily becomes condemnation.

More and more young men are searching for genuine meaning, brotherhood, accountability, and purpose. They are not necessarily rejecting God or morality. Often, they are rejecting environments where questions are answered with accusations and disagreement becomes a judgment of their faith.

Freemasonry does not replace Christ or the church. But when Christian voices approach young men as you have approached me here, we should not be surprised when they seek community and meaning somewhere else.

Commenter:

Pearls to pigs. One day you’re gonna stand in front of Jesus and he’s gonna tell you that he was not the grand architect and it’s gonna be a very bad day for you. I’m telling you the truth as a follower of Jesus.

Square Thoughts:

My brother, I would encourage you to place more faith in Christ than in your fear of Freemasonry.

If Jesus is truly King of the universe, then He is not threatened by a fraternity of imperfect men encouraging one another toward integrity, charity, and service. Christ does not need us to distort other people, question their salvation, or frighten them into agreement in order to defend Him.

Fear requires enemies and caricatures. Faith can listen, ask honest questions, and speak truth without anxiety. I do not doubt that you love Jesus. I simply hope you come to trust Him enough that you no longer feel compelled to misrepresent others on His behalf.

Shared with love,

Brother Rob

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Somewhere in the morning coffee scroll this week, in that stretch of screen time I keep telling myself counts as reading, a quote from the author of Atomic Habits floated past: it does not make sense to continue wanting something if you are not willing to do what it takes to get it. If you do not want to live the lifestyle, then release yourself from the desire. To crave the result but not the process is to guarantee disappointment. James Clear meant individuals and their habits. Lodges live that sentence out every year without knowing anybody wrote it down.

Read it as a Mason who cares and it sounds like an indictment. You want revival and you have not produced one, so you must not be willing. You must not want it badly enough. I understand that reading. I reject it, because the quote only convicts you if you get the process wrong.

Start with where the time, energy, and money went. Run your own week through the question before you answer it for anyone else. What time did you leave the house Monday, and what time did you walk back in? Subtract supper, the overtime you did not choose, whatever your version of the practice schedule is, and look at what remains for a lodge across town at seven on a Tuesday. The men in the photographs on the dining room wall did that math with one income, a house in walking distance, and a world still full of union halls and bowling leagues. That world got dismantled out from under us. When a brother skips the Saturday work party, it is arithmetic more often than apathy.

Now look around the lodge room, because every declining lodge holds the same cast, and two of them matter here. The Reformer joins expecting transformation and finds stagnation. He proposes, he pushes, he drafts the improvement plan nobody asked for, and he burns out fighting entropy itself. I recognize him because I was one. Some days I still am.

The Custodian is a different animal. He opens the building two hours early so the heat is on before anyone arrives. Somebody's widow needs a card, and he is the one who remembers. He has been through the chairs and does not talk about it much. He is not storming any castle. He is bearing witness, and he carries institutional memory that exists nowhere else.

Put that line in front of the Custodian, the one about craving the result but not the process, and the wrong reading tells him he is failing. He craves a full lodge, and all he does is unlock doors, pay the insurance, read the minutes. Small work. Surely not what it takes.

Except it is exactly what it takes, once the desire gets named honestly.

I dream of a revival I probably cannot personally produce. What I can do is make sure that when a man with Reformer energy walks through that door, five years from now or twenty, he finds a building with heat in it, a charter on the wall, books in order, and a handful of brothers who still open and close a lodge the right way. Reformations do not happen in rubble. Somebody has to keep the thing alive long enough to be reformed.

To get the full value of Clear's line, though, you have to watch where you point it. We are brutal judges of ourselves. Someone once said that if we treated other people the way we treat ourselves, we would all be in prison. And once we finish sentencing ourselves, we usually start on the brothers who stopped showing up. Aimed either direction, the line becomes a club. Applied properly it works less like a club and more like a twenty-four inch gauge, laid across the gap between the desire and the calendar.

Measured that way, the work looks like this. Dues notices out on time. A proficiency session with one candidate on a Tuesday. A phone call to a brother nobody has seen since installation, made by a man who is tired too. You have your own version of that list. The minutes you take, the rent check, the coffee started before anyone else pulls in, whatever it is that nobody thanks you for. Put it on the list before you decide it does not count. None of it photographs well, and all of it is what it takes, scaled to the life you actually have.

Clear left two honest exits, and only two. Live the lifestyle, or release the desire. Some lodges should take the release, let go of the dream of two hundred members, and be at peace as ten brothers who know each other well. Some brothers should stop flogging themselves for not being the Reformer and see that custody, done faithfully, is living the lifestyle. The disappointment he promises belongs to the lodge that wants revival and chooses neither exit.

It has never once belonged to the man who turns on the heat and holds the door for a future he may never sit in.

—Brother Rob

Comment

Share

Subscribe

I write about Masonry because I believe in what it can be. If these essays resonate, my books go deeper: The Unfinished Temple, Candidate to Craftsman, and Square Thoughts available at Bosley Press

He holds a dues card. He sits in an officer's chair, usually the Secretary's, sometimes several chairs at once if you count the charity board and the degree work and the newsletter nobody else would write. He arrives early to unlock the building and stays late to lock it. If you asked the brethren to name the most dedicated Mason in the room, they would name him without hesitation.

But he is not a member. He is staff. Unpaid, untitled beyond the titles that came with more work, and unthanked in any way that counts. Somewhere along the line, without a vote or a ceremony, he stopped attending his lodge and started running it. And the lodge, being an institution, did what institutions do with reliable infrastructure. It forgot the infrastructure was a man. Nobody applauds the pipes until they burst.

I know this man because I am this man, and if you have read this far, there is a fair chance you are too, or you know exactly whose face came to mind. Every lodge has one. The healthy ones have three, which is how the work of forty gets done by three tired men while thirty-seven brothers enjoy a lodge experience those three quietly manufacture for them.

No villain appears anywhere in the story of how it happens. A man petitions, gets raised, and loves it. He has capacity and he cares, which is a dangerous combination in a volunteer organization. Someone has to take the Secretary's desk, and he is the one who could. Then the charity needs a president, and he is the one who could. Then the degree work needs a coordinator, the mentoring program needs materials, the district needs a report, and each time the room looks at him, because he is the one who could. Every yes was freely given. Every yes was also a brick, and one day he looks up and finds he has built himself a job where his refuge used to be.

The institution did not do this to him. Men like us do this everywhere we go. The same instinct that makes a man indispensable at lodge makes him indispensable at work, at church, at home. Being needed is its own compensation, right up until the day it is not, and the day it stops paying is usually the day he notices that being needed and being appreciated are different currencies, and he has been paid exclusively in the first one for years.

So he does the math. Hours given against gratitude returned. And the math comes up short, badly short, the kind of short that a certificate at the annual installation does not begin to cover.

Then the man and the lodge both proceed to get it wrong.

The man, exhausted and unseen, reaches for the only lever he thinks he has, the door. He drafts the resignation in his head. Demit, walk away, set himself free. I understand the pull of it, because burning something down feels like agency when nothing else does. But the craft was never what drained him. The craft fed him. The desk drained him. A man owes it to himself to figure out which of the two he is actually done with before he signs anything, because they are easy to confuse when both of them are wearing the same apron.

The lodge, meanwhile, notices nothing until the announcement, and then responds with a sudden flood of appreciation that would have changed everything two years earlier and changes almost nothing now. Gratitude delivered after the resignation counts for half. Write that on the wall of every secretary's office in the state.

The corporate world coined a phrase for the alternative, and coined it with a sneer. Quiet quitting. In an office it means doing your job and nothing beyond it, and managers hate it because the whole system runs on extracted extra. Masonry needs its infrastructure men to quiet quit, deliberately and together, and I mean that as medicine rather than sabotage. The men this essay describes have already given more than any reasonable fraternity could ask. Their devotion is not in question and never was, which is exactly why they are the only ones with the standing to do this.

Quiet quitting Masonry means stepping down the ladder instead of out the door. Finish the year with honor. Hand off the desk cleanly, with real transition documents, because we are not barbarians. Keep the dues card. Keep the friendships. And then do the thing that turns out to be harder than any office you ever held. Sit on the sidelines at a stated meeting as just a brother, and stay there.

The together part is the whole mechanism, and it is the reason I have not yet done this myself. Every infrastructure man knows that if he sets the burden down, another man like him will pick it up. Some earnest brother with capacity and care, five years behind him on the same road, will see the empty desk and volunteer, and the machine will consume him on the same schedule it consumed the last one. We stay in the chairs to spare each other, which means the chairs are now being held by mutual hostage arrangement, and no one can name it out loud.

So it has to be named out loud. If the three tired men in your lodge all pull back at once, on purpose, in coordination, one of two things happens. Either the thirty-seven discover that a lodge is their responsibility too, and the work redistributes into something survivable, or the lodge discovers it cannot function without conscripting its most willing men into unpaid staff positions. That second outcome is not a failure of the men who surfaced it. It is data the lodge needs, because an institution that can only survive by burning through its best people three at a time is not being saved by those men. It is being enabled by them, its reckoning rescheduled at the cost of their health, their families, and eventually their affection for the craft itself. We built these rooms so men could work on themselves in the company of other men doing the same, and somewhere we inverted it, and now the Secretary who has not heard a degree lecture as a listener in six years is serving Masonry instead of being served by it, and there was never supposed to be a difference.

I do not know yet what my own version of this looks like, or how many weeks months or years in the future it lies. I know the math has been run and I know what it says. I know that the first stated meeting I attend with no minutes to take and no report to give is going to feel wrong in my hands, the way an empty toolbelt feels wrong to a man who has worn one for years. I expect I will sit there itching to fix something.

I am going to try to just sit there anyway.

-Brother Rob

Share

Subscribe

A man petitions. He is investigated, balloted, initiated, passed, raised. Somewhere in there he was asked to be a reflective supplicant. A student. Someone who came to the West Gate poor and penniless and asking, not someone who came to inspect the premises. Some men understand that. They show up not knowing what they do not know, and they let the work work on them.

But there is also the other kind. He arrives already fluent in a different language. Maybe it was Kiwanis. Maybe it was Rotary, or a town board, or a homeowners association, or twenty years of running meetings somewhere else. He has run an organization before and he knows how an organization is supposed to run. So before he understands what we do, before he has any sense of why we do it or how we got here, he starts diagnosing. We should be doing more service projects. We should be more visible in the community. We should be managing the building differently, running the money differently, recruiting differently. He has opinions about everything the lodge is failing to do. He says things under his breath to allies, thinking no one hears, things like these guys just don’t know how to fundraise, or them when he means whoever he has decided is the biggest obstacle to making the place his next fiefdom of familiarity. He has a problem for every solution, and solutions for problems he has not earned the right to name yet.

What he is doing, underneath all the suggestions, is trying to make the lodge feel like a room he has already mastered. It is easier to point at everything around you and call it broken than to sit still and be reshaped by something you asked to join. He petitioned for the lessons. The lessons showed up, and they are inconvenient. He has lived a whole life before lodge, and to his mind the lessons should respect that and let him be, ask nothing of him. He would rather edit the curriculum than submit to it. It is more comfortable to stay the same and tell everything that is different that it should be more like whatever he left.

I will not pretend I was never that man. I came in younger, I had opinions, and some of them were probably louder than they needed to be. What saved me was mentorship. A couple of them, in fact, Ryan and Kelly, both well grounded in the craft. They trusted me, and I trusted them enough to ask things straight and get straight answers back. Reflecting on it now, as I write this, the fact that I came with curiosities instead of verdicts probably means I was not as bad as I have been telling myself. There is a case to be made there for a strong mentor, and a case to be made for showing up curious rather than certain. I let the craft tell me what to learn and what to carry, and I picked it up by repeatedly showing up, and before I knew it I was changing and being changed. The understanding came after. It came after the action, not before it. Ready shows up after.

That is the part the diagnosing brother keeps trying to negotiate. He wants the new mindset before he takes the new action. He wants to feel like a Mason before he does the small, unglamorous, unclapped-for things that make one. Take the office. Set up the chairs. Read, or better yet memorize, the part you were given even when your delivery is rough. Sit through a meeting that bores you and stay anyway. Learn the floor work before you propose redesigning the floor. Taken at face value it is kind of boring, sometimes silly, often confusing. But all of it is the first part of the work, the foundation if you will, and the work is what changes a man, not his analysis of the work. You have to build on solid ground, and ground has to be cleared and dug and prepared before the foundation is laid. Too many metaphors? Did I lose you?

I should say why I am writing this, because it is not only frustration.

I am a steward now. Not in the sense of office, I am a Past Master and a Secretary and we are not talking about jewels or positions here. A steward of the craft. One of the men who keeps the lights on, keeps the minutes flowing, keeps the communications going out so the room exists at all the next time somebody wants to walk into it. That kind of work matters, and I am good at it. I also know my limits. The steward, or the custodian as I have called it before, who keeps the institution running is not always the man who will dream up whatever the next chapter needs. Sometimes a lodge needs innovation, new thinking, somebody willing to build a thing that was not there before, and that energy lives in a different brother. The healthiest thing a steward can do is notice when the future belongs partly to someone else and share the load instead of guarding it. I have both impulses in me, the keeper and the builder, and I have had to learn where to spend each one.

So I am not against new energy. I am not against the brother who wants to change things.

What wears on me is the man who wants to change everything and pick up nothing. Plenty to say about what the organization should be doing. No apparent interest in doing any of it himself. He mistakes his own ego for vision and his own discomfort for insight. He is not innovating. He is redecorating the prison cell, rearranging the furniture of his own comfort and calling it reform.

Here is what finally moved something in me. I look at that brother, and a few feet away I see a couple of twenty-somethings who have not lived enough life to have hard opinions about how a lodge ought to run. They do not show up with a diagnosis. They show up curious. They ask questions because they actually want the answers. They are happy to be included, grateful to be on the team, hungry for somebody to mentor them. Past a few basic things a decent man already believes about right and wrong, they are not certain of much, and that uncertainty makes them teachable in a way the confident newcomer is not.

It is refreshing, and it has done something practical to me. It has used up the bandwidth I might have spent on the complaining know-it-all who will not lift his working tools. I have a finite amount of attention and care. I have started spending it on the men reaching for the craft instead of the man who thinks the craft should reach for him.

These are not just two states inside one person. They are two energies sitting in the same lodge room on the same night. The brother who thinks his awareness should count as contribution. The brother who quietly does the small thing he said he would do, even when nobody is clapping. Both of them came through the same door. Only one is letting the door change him.

You become a Mason the way you become anything. Not by composing a better version of yourself in your head and waiting for the room to recognize it. By going to the meeting. By making the call. By taking the part you were given and learning it. By staying when staying is dull. The mind catches up to the man who keeps showing up. It never quite catches the one still standing at the gate explaining how the gate should have been built.

-Brother Rob

A note on the man in this piece. He is an archetype, a way of thinking, not a person. I am not writing about anyone in particular, and I say that plainly because brothers in my lodge read these essays, and they tell me afterward that they have already decided who I meant. They assign a face. It is almost never the right one. Almost. And in this case, the older man who arrives certain has plenty he could learn from the young men who arrive curious. I know that because, at only forty-something myself, I am learning from the way those young men approach the craft.

Leave a comment

If you would rather not scroll back through the first hundred essays I posted here, I get it. I spent six months pulling them apart, cleaning them up, and de-bloggifying them into actual chapters you can read without a scroll wheel. That became Square Thoughts. It and the rest of my Masonic education and reflection books are at www.bosley.press.

His father, the story goes, was struck dumb before the boy was even born. Zacharias was a priest, old, his wife Elizabeth long past the age of children. An angel told him he would have a son anyway, and Zacharias, being a reasonable man, said so out loud. For the doubt he lost his voice until the child arrived. The father of the man who would spend his life shouting in the wilderness spent nine months unable to make a sound. He got his speech back only when he reached for a tablet and wrote out the name the angel had given him, and the first thing he did with it was praise.

The boy grew up and walked into the desert and stayed. Camel hair, locusts, wild honey, no roof over him and no rank to his name. From that nowhere he started telling everyone who came near to change their lives, because someone was coming who would not wait for them to be ready. He flattered no one. When the Pharisees and Sadducees came out in their fine robes to take his measure, he called them a brood of vipers to their faces. People waded into the Jordan by the hundreds to be washed, and he washed them, and he never stopped saying the same thing. He was not the one they were waiting for. He was only the voice that ran out ahead.

Then Jesus, the man he had spent his life announcing, walked up and asked to be washed like anyone else in the line. John tried to refuse. He knew the order of things, knew exactly which of them was greater. He did it anyway, because he was asked. And the sky opened.

His death was far smaller than his life. He had told the local king, Herod, to his face that taking his brother's wife broke the law, and the wife, Herodias, never forgot it. Herod himself feared John and kept him half-protected, sensing the man was holy even when the sermons stung. It took a party to finish him. Herodias sent her daughter in to dance, the dance pleased the king in front of every guest at the table, and he swore a great open-handed oath to give the girl anything she named. Her mother told her what to name. The king was sorry. He was also vain, and the oath was already out of his mouth, so a sword settled what his conscience would not. The man of fire is usually put out by someone smaller than himself, for reasons smaller still.

After God, every Masonic lodge dedicates itself to two men, and that was the first of them. The second could not have been more his opposite.

John the Evangelist, the one remembered for writing a Gospel, was a man who leaned in close. At the last meal before the arrest, he is the disciple resting against Jesus's side. At the execution, after the others had run, he is the one Jesus asked to look after his mother. And he outlived them all. The tradition holds that he alone of the inner circle was never killed for the cause, that he died old at Ephesus, the last man left alive who had stood inside the story. Jerome, one of the early Church's great scholars, passes down a scene from those final years. The apostle, too frail to walk, was carried into the gathering, and could no longer preach a sermon of any length. He said one sentence, and then the same sentence the next time, and the same after that. Little children, love one another. When they finally asked him why he never said anything else, he told them it was the whole of the Lord's command, and that if you did this much, it was enough.

Set the two deaths side by side. One man dies young and loud, beheaded at a tyrant's party for refusing to soften the truth. The other dies ancient and quiet, a whole life of learning worn down to a single line about love. One was fire. The other was water. The man who acts, and the man who waits and watches and finally understands.

That is why the lodge claims both of them, and why it would be a thinner place holding only one. Zeal with no knowledge burns down more than it builds. Knowledge with no zeal sits in its chair and admires itself. The Baptist on his own is a fanatic. The Evangelist on his own is a scholar who never leaves the library. A man is asked to carry the fire of the first banked by the patience of the second, and to read which of the two the moment in front of him is calling for. That is a lifetime of work, and nobody alive has finished it.

A lodge asks a man to believe in God and is famously quiet about which one. It has never required him to be a Christian. What it offers in these two saints is a pattern any man can follow, whatever name he prays to.

And there is one thing the two of them share, underneath everything that sets them apart. Neither pointed at himself. The Baptist said flatly that he was not the one. The Evangelist spent a lifetime pointing past himself at the same Jesus he wrote about. Two temperaments with nothing in common, fixed on the same thing above them both. A lodge that puts God first and these two men second is making its whole case in that order. The saints are the road. Where the road goes is God.

Now a bit you may have heard murmured, with a knowing look, as though the fraternity had smuggled something pagan in through a side door. The two feasts sit almost dead on the solstices. The Baptist on June 24, just past the longest day. The Evangelist on December 27, just past the longest night. Two saints, posted at the two turns of the sun.

Freemasonry did not arrange that, and neither did paganism. The dates fall out of the Christian story's own arithmetic. When the angel came to Mary, he told her that her cousin Elizabeth, John's mother, was already six months along. Six months. The Church set the birth of Jesus at the winter solstice, the date we keep as Christmas, and counting back from there, John's own birth lands six months ahead of it, at the summer one. The calendar is doing nothing stranger than keeping faith with the Gospel of Luke.

People get the next part wrong. The old midsummer fires had burned on the hilltops of Europe long before any of this, marking the sun at its height. The Church did not put them out. Across much of the old world they were gathered into the eve of the Baptist's feast and went on burning for centuries under his name. To a certain kind of reader that looks like a cover-up. It was nearer to a recognition. The fire was already lit. What changed was where it pointed.

And the men who turned it were not hiding the astronomy. They were preaching it. Augustine, the most influential mind of the early Church, stood up on this very feast and told his congregation that God had timed the whole thing on purpose. The Baptist had once said of Jesus that he himself now had to grow smaller so the other could grow greater. He must increase, and I must decrease. Augustine pointed at the sky. The forerunner came as the days began to shorten, and the Lord as they began to lengthen, so the turning of the light itself would say the same thing the man had said with his mouth. The sun repeats it every year without fail. The longest day lands on the Baptist's feast, and from that morning the light starts its long retreat, until it reaches the solstice that belongs to Christ and turns back to climb. The loud voice stands at the height of the year as the brightness starts to fail. The quiet one stands in the depth of it as the brightness starts to return.

The old commentators pushed it all the way into the manner of the deaths. Jesus was lifted up, raised on a cross, increased. John was cut down, made shorter by the loss of his head, decreased. The figure holds right to the blade.

None of this was invented by Freemasonry. The arithmetic belongs to the Church. The fires belonged to the people. The reading of the light is Augustine's, and it is fifteen centuries old. What the Craft did was arrive late, look at a calendar already thick with meaning, and take for its patrons the two men the whole tradition had already fixed at the poles of the sun, one where the light fails and one where it returns. A fraternity built on balance took the two figures who stand exactly where the year turns.

Anybody can learn in an afternoon that the dates line up with the solstices. What takes the rest of a life is sitting with why a tradition that weighed everything so carefully would want two men, planted at opposite ends of the light, keeping watch over the same door a man walks through to get in.

The dates are the easy part. The two men are the assignment.

-Brother Rob

Wallace Sayre, a political scientist at Columbia, observed that academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. The less there is actually on the line, the harder people fight to win it.

You have watched this in your own lodge. The argument over pie versus cake at the next dinner throws off more heat than the conversation about whether the building is structurally sound. The debate over where to hang a photograph turns personal in a way the vote on the annual budget never does. Brothers who sit in comfortable silence through every discussion that matters will go to war over the color of the new carpet.

The engine underneath is the same one that drives the Law of Triviality, but Sayre adds the part that stings. Bikeshedding tells you why people pile onto small decisions. Sayre’s Law tells you why they get mean about it. A small decision feels personal because everyone has an opinion on it and every opinion feels just as good as the next man’s. Raise the stakes high enough and most brothers defer to whoever has the expertise or the authority. Drop them low enough and every man in the room is an expert, and not one of them will give an inch.

This is how a lodge grows grudges that outlast the men who started them, over decisions nobody outside that room could be paid to care about. Two brothers stop speaking over the annual picnic. A Past Master carries a wound for fifteen years because somebody moved the furniture in the dining hall. The weight of the fight has nothing to do with the weight of what started it.

A Worshipful Master who catches the pattern early can take the air out of it by naming the stakes out loud. “Brothers, these are tablecloths. Let’s pick one and move on.” It sounds blunt, and it is. The alternative is watching a room full of grown men burn real goodwill on something not one of them will remember by autumn.

-Brother Rob

Subscribe now

Share

Rob Linn is the author of several Masonic books. Find his work at amazon.com/author/robertwlinn.

Ward Cunningham, the man who invented the wiki, noticed that the fastest way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question. It is to post the wrong one. People who would never volunteer a thing will trip over themselves to correct you.

The same thing happens in lodge rooms, and a brother who sees it can use it on purpose.

A Worshipful Master who asks “does anyone have ideas for our education program?” gets silence. The question is too open. Nobody wants to go first, and nobody wants to look like he is campaigning for something. The room stays quiet, and the Master walks away believing nobody cares about education.

That same Master, saying “I’m thinking we just skip education this year, since nobody seems interested,” will have three brothers on their feet before he finishes the sentence. The wrong answer pulls the right response, because correcting somebody feels a lot safer than volunteering in front of everybody.

This is not manipulation. It is paying attention to how a group actually behaves. Most brothers have opinions about their lodge. They know what they wish would change, what they want left alone, what has gone missing. They sit on those opinions because the cost of speaking first into a silent room feels higher than the cost of staying quiet.

A wrong assumption laid out loud can open a conversation a straight question never will. Say “it seems like most brothers would rather have a social hour than a formal meeting” and watch how fast someone pushes back. Say “I don’t think anyone wants degree work this quarter” and three brothers are suddenly volunteering for parts.

The real skill is telling the difference between using this on purpose and just being wrong in a room that won’t correct you. Cunningham’s Law only works where correction feels safe. In a lodge where it doesn’t, the wrong answer stops being bait. It becomes policy.

-Brother Rob

Rob Linn is the author of several Masonic books. Find his work at amazon.com/author/robertwlinn.

Subscribe now

Share

Rob Linn is the author of several Masonic books. Find his work at amazon.com/author/robertwlinn.

We handed out Pokémon card packs to any kid who wrote his name on a ticket. Parents played with their children or turned them loose to learn a new game with somebody else’s children. The adults who wanted to talk stood in the kitchen with coffee. The kids who wanted to run ran, out in the yard, tossing a disc toward the baskets we put in. Our Eastern Star ladies came. Whole families came. We put a movie on in the back room, the one still full of old donated furniture nobody has the heart to throw out, and there were coloring pages on the table and cards being dealt and chips on the floor and a lot of laughing.

It felt good. We spend months planning bigger things, and this one asked for almost nothing and gave back more than most of them.

It was Brother Tim’s idea. Tim is the kindest man I know, father of two boys, married to a woman who keeps him pointed in the right direction. He owns two businesses that both want all of him, he spends two weeks a month or more on the road, and he started a PTA at his kids’ school. He still makes every meeting. And when he had the notion for a family game day, he did not bring it to the lodge for a vote or wait for permission. He talked it over with a few friends, trusted his gut, and announced it was happening. He put up a Facebook post and the community answered.

I know the version of Masonry we are supposed to miss. Full pews, packed Tuesdays, a hall so crowded for a brother’s funeral that men crossed a river to get there. It is a beautiful story and I have told it myself. But I have stopped letting it stand over my shoulder and grade me. Whatever that room was, it is not the room I have, and the room I have was laughing on a Saturday afternoon.

A lodge was never the building or the calendar or the size of the roll. It was always whoever showed up, and what it felt like when they did. For a long time I thought my job was to get the numbers back. Lately I think the job is simpler. Make the room worth walking into, and stop apologizing that the ones who walk in are fewer than some story says they should be.

I think about those old families on a winter night, no screens pulling them in six directions, walking into a warm hall full of people they knew. Then I look at coloring pages and disc golf and a movie playing on furniture older than anyone watching it, and I cannot find the gap that nostalgia keeps insisting is there.

We are not trying to get back to anything. We set out the chips, we opened the doors, and the people who were here came in.

So thank you, Tim. For being yourself, for trusting yourself, and for starting something that is going to brighten a lot of days for a lot of families this year.

-Brother Rob

Subscribe now

Share

Laurence Peter observed in 1969 that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence. A person gets promoted because they are good at the job they already have. The new job asks for different skills. If they don’t have those skills, they stop rising and stay put, doing the work poorly, because the organization promoted them on past performance instead of future fit.

The Masonic officer line runs the Peter Principle on automatic. A gifted ritualist advances through chairs that ask, more and more, for administrative and interpersonal skills he may never have built. The best Senior Deacon your lodge has seen in twenty years can become a middling Senior Warden, because the Warden’s work is not ritual. It is planning, preparing for the East, and managing people who don’t report to you and never will.

The line treats every chair as a step to the next one. It rarely stops to ask whether the brother in the chair belongs there, or whether the chair ahead of him fits how he is actually built. The assumption running underneath is that doing well at one level predicts doing well at the next. Peter spent a career showing that it doesn’t.

None of this means the line is broken. It means the line needs a hand. A brother who shines at ritual and struggles at leadership should be held where he shines, not pushed into the East because the East was simply next. A lodge that can tell a man “you are the best Senior Deacon we have and we need you right here,” and have it land as respect rather than a demotion, has solved a problem most lodges will not even say out loud.

It cuts the other way too. Some brothers look ordinary in the junior chairs and then come alive in the Senior Warden’s seat, because the job finally asks for what they are good at. Miss what each chair really demands and you miss those men entirely.

So weigh a brother against what the chair ahead of him will ask, not against what the chair he is in happened to reward. The line is there to build leaders, not move them along.

-Brother Rob

Subscribe now

Share

Rob Linn is the author of several Masonic books. Find his work at amazon.com/author/robertwlinn.

Your five senses are delivering roughly eleven million bits to your brain every second. Vision alone accounts for about ten million. Touch brings another million. The rest trickles in through hearing, smell, and taste. A full floppy disk of raw sensory data, every second, all day long.

Your conscious mind processes about fifty.

Fifty bits per second. Out of eleven million. That number comes from Manfred Zimmermann's work in sensory neurophysiology, and it's held up across decades of follow-on research. Tor Nørretranders explored the implications in *The User Illusion*, comparing consciousness to a narrow straw trying to drink from a fire hose. Your brain is filtering out 99.999% of what's actually there before you ever become aware of it.

So every experience you have, every room you walk into, every conversation, every degree you witness or participate in, your conscious mind is catching almost none of what's available. The rest isn't gone. It passed through you. You just didn't have the bandwidth to register it.

I spent years teaching adults, and one thing I learned early is that most of them had already decided they were done learning. Jim Rohn used to talk about this. He'd point out that a tiny percentage of the adult population buys books, and an even tinier percentage actually reads them. The vast majority of books sold in this country are purchased by the same small group of people, over and over again. Most adults, once they cross the stage at graduation, never voluntarily open a book again. Maybe a magazine. Maybe something with a box score. But a book that asks something of them, that invites them to sit with an idea long enough for it to actually work on them? No. They're finished.

That saddens me. And when I see it inside the lodge room, it irritates me, and I'll own that.

Those eleven million bits change how I sit in a degree. Picture the ritual, the lectures, the charges, all of it, across all three degrees. Call it eight hours. A page of text holds about sixteen thousand bits, so at eleven million bits a second, your senses take in something like twenty million pages over those eight hours. Stacked up, that paper would stand more than a mile high. What your conscious mind actually kept would not fill ninety pages. You could hold it between your thumb and forefinger.

A mile of information came through you. You walked away with a quarter inch.

That is why we say that no matter how many times you go back to the ritual, there is always more waiting.

I won't begrudge the brothers who preach memory work as a discipline. It forces you to slow down and sit with every word. But memorization by itself isn't the destination. A brother can have every line of the ritual committed to memory and still have never asked what those words actually mean. The literal meaning. The implied meaning. The spiritual dimension. The physical application. The historical context. The psychological layer. Every single sentence in our ritual carries multiple channels of meaning, and each of those channels is broadcasting more information than your conscious mind can absorb in a single pass. Or a second pass. Or a tenth.

Knowing that, the brother who goes through a degree once and never looks back isn't lazy, exactly. He's human. His brain did what brains do. It filtered. It summarized. It told him a story about what he experienced, and that story felt complete. But it wasn't. It was fifty bits out of eleven million.

The harder question turns back on us. How do we, lovingly and humbly, invite someone back into something he believes he has already finished? You cannot shame a man into curiosity. You cannot lecture someone into wonder. And the moment you set yourself up as the one who really understands the work, you have already lost him.

I believe the answer lives in accessibility. Make the depth approachable. Make it possible for a brother to pick up one page, spend five minutes with it, and walk away having noticed something he had never noticed before. Not because someone told him what to think. Because the material met him where he stood and gave him a reason to look again.

That is what I was after with “Candidate to Craftsman” and “The Unfinished Temple”. Both books were built on a simple conviction. Masonic education does not require a seminary degree. It does not require a photographic memory. One page. One idea. One small window into what was always there, waiting.

If you are reading this, you are probably not the brother I am thinking about. You already pick things up. You already go back to the ritual. You already suspect there is more. But you sit in lodge next to brothers who do not. And we will not reach them through frustration. We will not reach them by talking down to them. We reach them by making the work honest enough and accessible enough that they are willing, just once more, to take another look.

Fifty bits is all any of us get at a time. The trick is going back for more.

-Brother Rob

If this is the kind of thing you want to sit with one page at a time, that is exactly what I built Candidate to Craftsman and The Unfinished Temple to do. Both are available through amazon, along with the rest of my work for Brothers who suspect there is always more waiting.

Subscribe now

Share

Grey’s Law states that any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. It’s the mirror image of Hanlon’s Razor, and it’s the harder truth.

A brother forgets to send an email once. That’s Hanlon’s Razor. He forgets every time for a year. At some point, the reason stops mattering. Whether he’s negligent or hostile, the effect on the lodge is identical. The committee doesn’t meet. The event doesn’t get planned. The members who were counting on him adjust their expectations downward. The damage is the same regardless of intent.

Grey’s Law is what happens when a lodge over-applies Hanlon’s Razor. When every failure is excused as an accident, when nobody is ever held accountable because we keep assuming good faith, the incompetence becomes functionally indistinguishable from sabotage. The man who was just forgetful a year ago is now the man whose forgetfulness has stalled three initiatives, frustrated five brothers, and cost the lodge a candidate who never came back after his first visit.

The hardest conversations in a lodge live at the border between these two laws. The brother who hasn’t performed his officer duties in six months. The committee chair who hasn’t convened a meeting all year. The Past Master who talks every new idea to death in the sidelines. None of them think they’re doing harm. Some of them would be genuinely hurt to hear it described that way. But intent doesn’t repair the damage, and at some point a lodge has to care more about outcomes than explanations.

Hanlon’s Razor is the right starting point. Give the benefit of the doubt first. But Grey’s Law is the necessary follow-up. When the pattern repeats long enough, stop asking why and start addressing what.

-Brother Rob

Subscribe now

Share

Rob Linn builds teams, lodges, and nonprofits, and writes about what happens when organizations stop earning the loyalty of the people who show up for them. Find his books at bosley.press.

He had no interest in managing how people saw him. He knew exactly who he was. He was genuinely more interested in the person across from him than in himself. I did not have a word for what he was modeling at the time. I just knew I wanted to be like that when I grew up.

I got it wrong for about thirty years.

What I learned to do instead was make myself small before anyone else could do it for me. When someone pointed at my resume, I waved it off. When someone asked how I ended up in a role, the answer was always the same: somebody asked me, I saw a need, I said yes. And that is true. But I told that story so many times and in such a specific way that it became a shield. If I never claimed anything, nobody could accuse me of wanting it too much. If I framed every accomplishment as an accident of circumstance, I never had to risk being seen as someone who wanted it.

I wrote a few days ago about the brothers who chase titles, who want the office more than the work. After I finished, the reflection kept going. It does that. There is always more to the story. And this time it turned inward, because I realized I had been making the opposite mistake with the same root. That chief never performed smallness. He never performed greatness. He was just present. I had spent decades performing smallness and calling it being grounded.

When I look at what I have actually done, not the version I downplay at the dinner table but the honest accounting, there is a pattern that goes beyond "somebody asked." I rebuilt teams that were falling apart. I taught leaders how to lead at an institution designed for exactly that purpose. I took on organizational problems that other people walked past because I could see what was broken and I knew how to fix it. Saying "I just showed up" dishonors every person who trusted me enough to hand me the problem in the first place.

I still catch myself rehearsing the humble version of a story before I tell it. I still flinch when someone describes my work in terms that sound too impressive, and I rush to qualify it before they finish the sentence. That impulse feels like modesty, but modesty does not flinch. Self-protection does, and I have been calling it something nicer for a long time.

Then there is Worshipful Brother Kelly Davis, a retired chief himself, who does what that old chief did but in an apron instead of a uniform. Maybe that is not a coincidence. Kelly has held nearly every district and regional appointment Michigan offers, DDI, Regional Grand Lecturer, Board of General Purposes, roles that other jurisdictions call District Deputy Grand Master, Grand Lecturer, and Board of Directors. He stepped aside from the RGL position when another brother expressed interest. He volunteered to be his lodge's secretary while already filling a board seat. When a friend passed away and left an office vacant, Kelly raised his hand. When a candidate needs a mentor or an aging brother needs a visit, Kelly is already in the car. He does all of this while showing up fully for his children and grandchildren, and he is on the road for Masonry more days than any man should be. He could earn himself a place in the Grand Line without breaking a sweat, and he would make this state's Masonry better for it. But he resists. He has been there for me, and for more brothers than he realizes. There are not many in our district who would not credit him with more Masonic good than he would ever publicly admit.

What separates Kelly from me, and what separated that chief from the version of myself I built in his image, is something C.S. Lewis put into words better than I can. A truly humble man, Lewis wrote, will not be thinking about humility at all. He will not be thinking about himself at all. I have not been able to set that line down since I first read it, because it names exactly what I have been getting wrong. I have spent years thinking about myself constantly, just in the wrong direction. Not inflating. Deflating. And both of those are just vanity wearing different clothes.

Thomas Aquinas took it further. Humility, he argued, is about recognizing the full truth about yourself. Not just your limitations. Your gifts, too. Denying a real gift is ingratitude dressed as modesty. And if you believe those gifts came from somewhere beyond you, which I do, then diminishing them is not humility toward the source. It is an argument with the Creator about His own judgment.

I have been making that argument for years. Kelly has not. That chief never did.

The brother who chases a title he has not earned and the brother who refuses to acknowledge the gifts he carries are making the same mistake from opposite directions. Both have lost sight of the work. One is staring at the nameplate. The other is staring at his shoes.

Humility is accuracy. It means knowing what you carry, offering it without apology, and stepping back when the work does not need you anymore. The genuinely humble man is more interested in the mission than in his role within it. The dirt we came from does not care how important we think we are, and it does not care how unimportant we pretend to be either. It will take us back the same way regardless. The only honest thing to do between now and then is to stop managing the story and just do the work.

I am not there yet.

-Brother Rob

That idea resonated with me instantly, in spite of never having heard it stated so directly. So I went to the Google box to see whether the research would validate it or take it apart. What I found did not debunk much of anything.

Plato argued twenty-four centuries ago that only those who do not desire political power can be trusted with it. Jerry Pournelle observed that every organization eventually splits into two groups: those devoted to the mission and those devoted to the organization itself, and the second group always wins. Laurence Peter noticed that hierarchies promote people until they land in a seat they cannot fill. Three thinkers across two millennia, different frameworks, same conclusion. The people who end up running things are frequently not the people best suited to run them.

I sat with that during our Grand Lodge Annual Communication this past week. Not because I was cataloging who belongs in which category, but because I started asking the question of myself.

Why do I serve?

It is an uncomfortable question if you are honest with it. Most of us have a story we tell ourselves about our own motivations, and that story is usually flattering. We serve because we care. We stepped up because nobody else would. We saw a need and filled it. And maybe all of that is true. But Pournelle's Iron Law does not describe villains. It describes ordinary people who, somewhere along the way, became more invested in their position within the organization than in the reason the organization exists. Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to become that person. It happens slowly. The title starts to feel like it fits. The recognition becomes something you expect rather than something that surprises you. The work you once did because it mattered becomes work you do because it is yours.

I will not pretend my resume is modest. It is not. But when I trace back through the roles I have held, military and Masonic alike, almost none of them were sought. They accumulated because somebody asked, or because I saw something broken and could not leave it alone. That is the story I tell myself, anyway. And I believe it is mostly true. But "mostly" is doing some work in that sentence, and I think intellectual honesty requires sitting with that.

There is a version of service that looks like offering. You carry a skill or an idea, you see a gap where it fits, and you bring it forward. If someone else picks it up and runs with it, fine. If someone else gets the credit, fine. You showed up to contribute, not to collect. That version of service does not need a title to justify itself.

There is another version that looks almost identical from the outside but feels different on the inside. This version keeps score. It remembers who got the recognition and who did not. It frames service in terms of what has been earned. It says things like "it's my turn" or "I've paid my dues" without noticing that those phrases have nothing to do with the mission and everything to do with the self.

Most of us, if we are being honest, have felt both of those impulses. The question is which one is driving.

I think about the brothers I respect most in this fraternity, and they share a common trait. They would be doing the work whether anyone noticed or not. They are not building toward something. They are not positioning. If you took away every title they have ever held, they would still be the first ones to show up and the last ones to leave, because the work itself is the point. The fraternity could use more men like that. But it cannot produce them through elections or appointments. That kind of service comes from somewhere the organization cannot reach.

So the call to action here is not for the fraternity. It is for you. It is for me. Why do you serve? Not the answer you give at the dinner table or the one you put in your officer's report. The real one. The one that sits underneath the story you have been telling yourself. Are you offering, or are you collecting? Are you devoted to the mission, or have you become, without quite realizing it, devoted to the machine?

You do not owe anyone else that answer. But you owe it to yourself.

-Brother Rob

Hanlon’s Razor is usually stated as: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I would soften the second word. Brother Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, initiated into Lodge Amalia in Weimar in 1780, put it better two centuries before Hanlon submitted his version to a joke book: misunderstandings and neglect create more mischief in the world than malice and wickedness, and the latter two are far less common. In a lodge, distraction, exhaustion, and forgetfulness cover most of it.

The Secretary did not return your email because he has 200 members on his rolls, a full-time job, and his wife just had surgery. The Worshipful Master did not acknowledge your idea at the last meeting because he was managing three agenda items and a plumbing emergency in the basement. The brother who promised to call you back and did not was not sending a message. He was overwhelmed and your call fell off his list.

Lodge politics runs largely on misattribution. A brother feels slighted by something that happened at a meeting. He interprets it as intentional. He tells another brother, who agrees it seemed deliberate. A narrative forms. Within two months, a genuine grievance has calcified around something that was, in its original form, someone being stretched too thin to pay attention.

This does not mean malice never exists. It does. But it is rarer than we think, and the habit of assuming it first does more damage to lodge culture than the occasional actual slight ever could. A room full of men who assume good faith operates differently from a room full of men cataloging offenses.

The practical version of Hanlon’s Razor in a lodge is a phone call. Before the story sets, before the narrative hardens, call the brother and ask. “I noticed you didn’t respond to my message about the event. Everything okay?” Nine times out of ten, the answer is some version of “I’m sorry, I completely forgot.” The tenth time, you have surfaced something real that needed addressing anyway.

The razor does not make you naive. It makes you accurate more often than the alternative does. Most of the time, the simplest explanation is the right one, and the simplest explanation is almost never “he did it on purpose.”

-Brother Rob

Subscribe now

Share

Rob Linn builds teams, lodges, and nonprofits, and writes about what happens when organizations stop earning the loyalty of the people who show up for them. Find his books at bosley.press.