Quantity vs. Quality
by Roger
M. Firestone, 33 KCCH
rfire@jtan.com
http://mastermason.com/rfire
Is
there truly a conflict between quantity and quality? Yes, there can be, if we
allow it to occur. But "it ain't necessarily
so." It is the job of the investigating committee and the brethren who
care enough to come to Lodge to cast their ballots who must see to it that we
do not allow in those who are not fit to be made Masons. Is our Western society
deteriorating to the extent that the proportion of men fit to become Masons is
shrinking? Could be, but with over 70 million men of lawful age in the
Should
all the members of a Lodge be "super-Masons?" Is there no place in
the Craft for more ordinary men--the crane operators, electricians, plumbers,
firemen, and others who may not have a graduate-level education qualifying them
to do Masonic research but who can still lead and inspire their fellows?
A
pyramid (to use a Masonic symbol) has both a base and an apex. If one were to
try to get along without the base, the apex would be awfully close to the
ground. The broader the base, the higher the summit, from
which reports of greater vision will surely reach the bottom.
Dwight
David Eisenhower was one of the great generals of military history, but he
could have accomplished nothing against the Nazis without the hundreds of
thousands of ordinary fighting men to carry the battle to the enemy. Masonry's
quest for moral victory over the forces of oppression and tyranny requires more
than generals. It needs as many ordinary Masons who can _live_ Masonry in their
communities and shine the light from the East for all to see it.
In
Ecclesiasticus, a book of the Apocrypha, there is a
passage which begins, "Let us now praise famous men." But it goes on
to record that the good of the world is also due to those who lived faithfully
a hidden life and rest in unvisited tombs. Each has contributed his grain of
good to that vast storehouse.
King
Solomon could not have built the
No,
we should not relax our quality standards in order to pursue mere numbers. But
Masonry should not be declining when the population is growing, either.
Shrinking to a tiny group of ingrown researchers is a sure road to ultimate
extinction. Masonry has always been supposed to be involved with the world,
from its earliest foundations in the operative days; if stonemasonry had been
mere theoretical architecture, without ever putting one stone upon another,
there would be no cathedrals, palaces, and monuments to its worth. The world
needs Masonry as much as it did in the time of the Enlightenment, when it
spread ideas of free thought and republicanism to eat away the corrupt
foundations of the ancien regime.
Withdrawing from society to pursue our "work" is to follow a mistaken
idea of what our work consists of. (Some Masonic authorities say our work
consists only in making Masons--but even that cannot be done without
petitioners.)
Finally,
a personal note: As a Masonic education officer, I find much more value in
enlightening the Brethren in a regular Lodge than I have in arguing the fine
points of Masonic symbolism with those who are already well-informed members of
research bodies. Lighting more candles will spread the light better than
clustering those that are already lit in one place.
Roger
M. Firestone, 32 KCCH
This
posting originally appeared in the Freemasonry mailing list in response to a
comment suggesting that concern over the number of members, as evidenced by the
remarks of a Grand Master urging members to bring in petitions, might be
damaging to the Craft.