Ronald A. Seale, 33°
A&A Scottish Rite, P.O. Box 15766, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895

Increasing membership and maintaining quality are not mutually exclusive goals.

Illustrious Ronald A. Seale, 33°, Lieutenant Grand Commander, S.G.I.G. in Louisiana

We seem to spend so much time in Masonry talking about numbers as they relate to membership issues. In simplistic terms, we often resort to measuring our success or failure by what the "numbers" say. An increase means success; a decrease is the mark of failure. In the Scottish Rite, with its long memory yearning for yesteryear, we gauge our efforts by looking to the size of our last Class. And, sadly, we bemoan the last Class as not a very good one-we had such a small number. This, to me, is negative and non-productive.

Over the years, I have come to appreciate two divergent views on the numbers. First, there are those who relate our success or lack thereof strictly as a "bottom line" issue. How many did we get? How many did we lose? How are we going to make ends meet? Pressed with these concerns, this school of thought often endorses the larger Class, limited means of instruction, and the most expeditious way to get a dues card into the hands of a man in order thereafter to report him as a "gain" and another potential recipient of the yearly dues statement. Only by an infusion of members at the grass roots can we hope to maintain our Lodges, our charities, and benevolent endeavors.

On the other hand, there are those whom I have come to identify as the "purists," the academicians who see Masonry as a means of training and instruction of men in a philosophical quest. They cast a contemptuous eye on the bigger-is-better theory and support the proposition that making Masons, like making wine, is the result of time-a process that can't be rushed. Running a man through a series of ceremonies without the time to process and digest what is presented serves neither the man nor the Fraternity, so say the adherents of this view.

Both approaches have merit. Both have cause for concern. If Masonry is to continue in any likeness of the form we know and under which we have been raised, then we have to have members. Without members to replace those who are gone, we're out of business. Which Lodge, which Valley, which Chapter should we close first? Mine? Yours?

Equally, we are called first and foremost to be the bearers of Light. In its truest form, that is our first task. The Candidate approaches our altar for the first time expressing his desire for Light. That translates to most of us as a request for knowledge, for understanding, for insight about himself, his fellowman, his God. If we fail him here, we have truly failed in making a Mason. And, in so doing, we have failed ourselves as a Fraternity. The best Masons are those that are well informed.

I'm not sure that either approach has to be mutually exclusive. I believe that we can reconcile the task of keeping an active membership base of men who are well educated and informed in Masonic teaching and principles. This remains our task. A generation ago, what caused men to petition our Lodges, our Scottish and York Rites, and so many other Appendant Bodies? What did we offer then that we do not offer now? What were our Candidates seeking? What did they find? In our generation, what is meeting those needs now? Perhaps the beginning of our quest is in discovering the answers to these inquiries.