Why We Resist Change

Posted on May 23, 2009November 6, 2021 by TimBryce | 1 Comment

If anything in life is constant, it is change.
– Bryce’s Law

Like so many of you, I am often mystified as to why there is so much trouble in the middle East. We could easily blame it on religious fanaticism, be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. Perhaps. But I tend to believe it can primarily be attributed to change (or the fear of it). In this part of the world, there is great suspicion over the cultural differences between religious groups. Each side fears if they make peace and accept the other parties, it will have an adverse affect on their culture which is something they simply will not accept. In their minds, each believes they follow the “true calling” and will not tolerate any discussion to the contrary. Frankly, I do not think anyone is trying to change the moral conviction of the other; nonetheless, the fear remains.

We see similar examples of the fear of change, on a much smaller scale, in business, the volunteer non-profit organizations we participate in, and in society in general. Change is a fact of life. Change happens every day before our eyes in the most subtle ways. Change is constant. And instead of resisting change, we should learn to understand it and learn to cope with it. Refusal to deal with change is simply denying reality. For example, I see substantial changes in the schools my children attend, not just the difference between my generation and theirs, but the changes in their own schools in the short time since they have been going to school. I have also witnessed substantial changes in the workplace since I entered it in the 1970’s.

In the systems world, I.T. departments should readily understand the nature of change for they typically devote 80% of their work effort on modifying and improving corporate systems. As an aside, I find it rather amusing that systems people, who are supposed to be the merchants of change, are often the most resistant to it themselves.

It would be nice to believe change always represents progress. Not necessarily. Change can also be counterproductive if a new convention is introduced that doesn’t improve the statuesque. This is probably the biggest cause for the fear of change; that it will not improve our livelihood but, instead, cause a decline in our way of life.

Change is not a technical problem as much as it is a people problem. Implementing changes to our mechanical devices is nothing compared to how the human being must deal with the device.

WHAT CAUSES CHANGE?

There are fundamentally three reasons for change:

Political/Government influences – representing new or modified laws, rules and regulations to be implemented either dictated to us or by majority rule. This is closely related to…
Cultural influences – society, fashion, religion, customs and language, even the physical environment affects change. For example, the use of our vernacular or our personal appearance represents subtle changes in attitudes and morality. Mother nature, with its tempest of storms, affects how and where we live. The evolution of technology falls into this category as well. For example, consider how the PC, cell phones, video players, and the Internet have affected our lives over the last few years. We now live in a fast-paced world where we expect everything on demand.
Competitive/Economic Influences – in order to succeed in life, it is necessary to evolve and improve in order to win. Do we really want to just “Keep up with the Jones'” or do we want to get ahead of them? Economics also influences our way of life and represents our safety blanket. For example, if we do not feel economically stable, we will alter what we are doing in life to safeguard our family and ourselves.

As an aside, these three agents of change greatly influence our information requirements. Those who understand this will adapt accordingly and be masters of their destiny. Those that do not, will fall behind.

There are three degrees of change:

Subtle – representing minor changes occurring daily which we accept (either gladly or grudgingly). Subtle changes can be as insignificant as a change in our speech, form of address, a new hair style, etc. We will either like and embrace such changes or we will simply tolerate them.
Moderate – representing significant modifications to the status quo. This includes such things as upgrades to our systems and procedures, changes to our policies, and material changes affecting our way of life. Moderate changes are either mandated or requires some tact or diplomacy to implement.
Radical – represents changes upsetting the status quo. This includes complete overhauls of systems, the introduction of totally new ways of conducting business, and such things as mergers, diversification, closings, and divorce.

Understand this, resistance to change grows as we move from subtle to radical. Subtle changes are those we understand and readily adapt to, but unending changes turning our world upside-down will not always be greeted with enthusiasm.

“Living without change would be inconceivable and unbearable. At the same time few of us would care to go on living in the midst of ceaseless, chaotic, completely unpredictable change.”
– Hadley Cantril

WHY DO WE RESIST CHANGE?

Let us now consider the fundamental reasons why we resist change:

We are creatures of habit. We long for stability in our lives which represents a comfort zone we want to live in. Any proposed change to this comfort zone is greeted with suspicion. This is perhaps the biggest reason for resistance to change.
Fear of the unknown. Going into a dark room is difficult even for the bravest of souls. As human-beings, we have a natural tendency to want to be in control of our actions and behavior. As such, the unknown is terrifying and causes us to invent rationales for why we shouldn’t do something; even worse, ignorance leads to fabrications of the truth and gossip.
Human emotion. Humans are capricious, and tend to do only what pleases them. We may elect to cooperate or stubbornly resist for no apparent reason. As such, we must recognize man as a political animal who will only do those things they feel are in their best interest. We do not like our authority or territory challenged whereby we might lose control. Consequently, we will sabotage any change coming our way.
Ignorance. We are either unaware a problem exists or that a better solution can be found. Many people are comfortable operating in a state of ignorance, they do not want to know about problems or anything affecting their environment.
Combinations of the above.

A person’s age also affects resistance to change. As we get older we become more set in our ways and less likely to accept change. In contrast, younger people are much more adaptive to change. A lot of this has to do with the fertility of the mind. Our most creative and energetic years are in our youth where we believe the sky is the limit. This is why the military wants young soldiers for they believe themselves to be fearless and want to prove themselves to their superiors and family. In other words, they have not yet learned they are not indestructible. But after they have been burned a couple of times, they start to become jaded and start to challenge the rationale for why they are asked to perform certain tasks. Further, the military realizes younger minds can be shaped more readily than older ones.

Read: The Death of Freemasonry: When Change Changes You

IMPLEMENTING CHANGE

As we all know, implementing change is not a simple matter. A lot depends on the perceptions of people. If we believe a change to be worthwhile, we will readily accept it; if not, we will bitterly resist it. As humans, we act on our perceptions which is not necessarily synonymous with reality; it is how we believe something to be regardless if it is true or not. Hitler and Joseph Goerbels were acutely aware of this phenomenon and distorted people’s perceptions in order to bring about sweeping changes in Germany. Both the press and politicians in general are also astute in this regard and attempt to influence public perceptions, thereby bringing about the changes they champion. Advertising agencies are also aware of this, as should business and non-profit groups interested in bringing about change.

Before we turn everyone into propaganda ministers though, let us consider the fundamentals for altering perceptions which is commonly referred to as the three canons of discourse: ethos, pathos, and logos, representing emotional appeals at ethical, emotional, and logical levels. We deliver these arguments through media appealing to our senses and intellect and “voila” you have the recipe for manipulating perceptions:

Rhetorical Argument (the message) X Media = Perception

Before we try to sell people on a particular change, we have to weigh the impact on its effect (subtle, moderate, or radical) versus the costs and benefits involved. “PRIDE” Special Subjects Bulletin Number 19 (“The Elements of Cost/Benefit Analysis” – Apr 11, 2005) includes a description for performing a Cost/Benefit Analysis.

We must recognize from the outset the cost of change is proportional to resistance to it. The higher the degree of change (“subtle” versus “radical”), the more costly it will be to implement.

Regardless of the scope or degree of change, in order for it to be successfully implemented, it must become a natural part of our lives (our culture). In other words, we have accepted the change and alter our lives to implement it. If we fail to adapt to it, the change will not take affect in the manner we had hoped. Let me give you an example, years ago my wife worked for a large jet engine manufacturer in the mid-west where she ordered specific parts for the assembly line. A lot of the ordering was done manually using index cards and paper forms. The company believed this to be antiquated and ordered the design of a new Order Processing System. Millions of dollars were spent on the project for a new “state of the art” system. As the system neared initial start-up, the order processing staff was given rather cryptic training in the use of the system. The system may have been a good one, but the developers underestimated the human element of change. So much so, when system startup came, the order processing staff simply ignored the new system and continued with their index cards and manual forms. This was a major setback for the systems people. What had they done wrong? Three things: first, they didn’t solicit support for the project from the order processing staff in the early stages of the project, nor did they have a representative from the staff participate in the project; Second, the training of the staff was done badly (cryptic instructions were given instead of offering education in terms the staff could understand), and; Third, the systems department failed to provide adequate technical support during system startup. Consequently, the order processing staff ignored the new system, went back to their old ways of doing things, and sent the systems staff back to the drawing boards.

Anytime we are interesting in introducing any major change, there are three things we must do:

Solicit support from the people who will be affected by the change thereby getting them “on board.”
Train them effectively (in terms the staff will understand).
Follow-up and support the people until the change becomes a natural part of the culture.

By doing so, we set at ease concerns people have about the merit of the change. If this is not done, people will either ignore the change, or even worse, deliberately sabotage it.

Implement as much change as the people affected can assimilate. Too much change may be too difficult for people to cope with. In this event, stage your changes over times. Always remember, “You eat elephants one spoonful at a time.”

TREND ANALYSIS

The Implementation of change is considered so important by some companies, they will track the frequency of changes and the degree of severity by either maintaining logs or plotting time lines (or both).

Such analysis is useful for spotting trends. If there is increased frequency of change, a manager should be asking questions as to why. Perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with the product or object we are managing.

THE NEED FOR CHANGE CONTROL

People will tolerate a certain amount of change, but complete chaos, where change occurs rapidly and unpredictably, is difficult for anyone to tolerate. “Controlled” changes, on the other hand, are more palatable to accept. To do so, we have to itemize and prioritize a backlog of anticipated changes and implement them under structured conditions as time and costs permit, thereby adding “rhyme and reason” to changes as opposed to helter-skelter.

Taking control over the implementation of changes (or “Change Control”) is essential in order to move from a “reactive” management style to a “pro-active” style. In other words, we take charge of change as opposed to changes taking charge of us.

CONCLUSION

Change is a fact of life and as such, we must either learn to adapt to it or perish. In fact, it is our duty to change, to aspire, to progress, to seek perfection and evolve. Change is natural.

Change impacts the lives of people and, as such, affects their emotions and insecurities. To implement change requires an appeal to the perceptions of people in terms of how it will improve their livelihood. If the change is misunderstood or if it is perceived as something having an adverse effect on the status quo, it will be steadfastly resisted. However, if a change is pitched properly, not only will people welcome it, they will help implement it for you.

Implementing change means overcoming fear and establishing trust. And remember, bite off only what your people can chew. Since change is an evolutionary process, stage your changes over time. As one part of your overall plan is implemented, phase in the next.

Finally, I will leave you with this quote from Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” written in 1513:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”

I guess some things never change.

Keep the Faith.

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS, MMBBFMN
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
“A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry”

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:

Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com

Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.

To receive notices of Tim’s writings, subscribe to his Discussion Group.

Also be sure to check out Tim’s “Pet Peeve of the Week“ (non-Masonic related).

Individualism and Collectivism Revisited

Posted on May 3, 2009November 6, 2021 by Fred Milliken | 9 Comments

A Historical Perspective

Recent articles on “The Euphrates” by Terence Satchell on how Freemasonry operates, either in a Collectivist or an Individualistic mode are too important and received far too little attention not to revisit these concepts again. For the style chosen has a lot to do with the success or failure of today’s Freemasonry. Now the two styles overlap and Freemasonry is not 100% purely one or the other. But it is where the primary emphasis is placed that dictates the nomenclature.

To understand the differences and the changes that have occurred in Freemasonry one has to look at its history and function in days gone by. Freemasonry was a product of the Enlightenment and grew up in the age of rapid club growth. In literature, the arts, politics, religion, science and fraternalism, clubs and societies sprang up all over Europe to meet the demand and the need to assimilate and understand all the new ideas and discoveries that were thrust upon society for the first time since ancient days at such a rapid rate. Some met in private homes, some met in coffee houses, some met in taverns and pubs and some met in the park but they all met in congenial fellowship to discuss, teach and inform, for times they were a-changing.

Bullock tells us:

“The club had first become popular in the later seventeenth century, simultaneous with the evolution of the term itself from a clump to a select group of men knotted together. By the 1710s, participation in clubs was becoming a regular part of social life among the upper levels of English society. By the early eighteenth century, London hosted an estimated two thousand such organizations. The enormous popularity of the club formed part of a larger transformation. Beginning in London, English society experienced major changes that reshaped modes of sociability. The communal and kinship bonds that had held together village life no longer proved adequate to the world of increased social diversity and widened cultural horizons experienced by Britons who moved beyond the narrow world of the parish but not yet within the circles of court society. The club, and its stepchild Masonry, provided a means of recreating the close ties of local friendship in a larger, more cosmopolitan world.”(1)

Early Freemasonry then revolved around instructing men (and sometimes women) in a philosophy and a new way of life in a closely bonded atmosphere. And a great deal of time was taken up in discussion of what the speculative art meant and what it could do for a man. Freemasonry was a club, a teaching club that evolved into a society; a more organized and structured entity. But even as it evolved it never lost its roots as an organization that mirrored somewhat a school. And the Freemasonry school had homework. Every Mason was expected to do some private study and was encouraged to do so.

Of course Freemasonry was more than just this and attracted members for various reasons. The fact that it attempted to be a classless organization in a society with classes and the nature of the bonded Brotherhood, that mystic tie, increased its popularity. But the foundation of its strength was its Gnostic knowledge, that special understanding of the meaning and mission of life that set it apart and above the myriad other organizations.

Freemasonry started than as individualistic. It was a philosophy, a way of life, a thought process, a study for the individual to transform himself into a more knowledgeable, better educated, well grounded, person who possessed an understanding of what it all meant, a better insight into the nature of it all and a circle of support and continuing enlightenment that yielded a tightly bonded family or Brotherhood. Freemasonry was all about what the individual Brother did and the pride of the Brotherhood was the accomplishment of the man. Freemasonry was a journey upon which a man embarked to make a better man and a better world.

Read: So What? The Dynamic of Masonic Membership

All Masonry was local. Each Brother was able to create his own path. Each Brother was Masonry’s creator; each Brother decided what he was going to do with the Fraternity and what he wasn’t going to do. The decision-making was in the hands of the individual Mason. It’s not that the body of Freemasonry as a whole could not take a stand for anything. As I have previously pointed out the virtues, values and ethics of the Craft upon which all Freemasons agree and all obligate themselves can be promulgated by the leaders of the fraternity on behalf of everybody. But that is a far cry from actually choosing how each Freemason has to experience his Freemasonry and ordering upon the threat of expulsion that it must be done a certain way.

In the Individualistic concept of Freemasonry Grand Lodges concerned themselves with chartering new Lodges, promoting the Craft and acting as a facilitator for both Lodge and Craft development. Grand Lodges made the circle larger. They added cohesiveness and structure to the fraternity.

But then the structure became Freemasonry. Collectivism took over the Craft. It didn’t happen overnight. It was like a cancer that slowly spread. A number of factors in American Freemasonry, and we are only talking about Freemasonry in the U.S.A., facilitated the growth of a centralized collective. Individualistic Freemasonry’s basis was decentralization, but not so with collective Freemasonry. American Freemasonry became concerned with territory. Perhaps it didn’t have enough confidence in the marketplace of the free association of ideas to compete. Perhaps it wanted to legally make any competition illegal. Whatever the reason, American Freemasonry adopted the American Doctrine, The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction. Now each jurisdiction had a monopoly, what in the civil world we would call a restraint of trade. Monopolies tend to become fat and lazy and feel no need to answer to anybody, especially the people whom they serve. Then all the Mainstream Grand Lodges got together and unofficially signed onto a gentlemen’s agreement never to criticize each other and to always support all others in everything that they did. Now no matter what a Grand Lodge did there were no repercussions because it was not answerable to a higher power or even a higher constitutional document. Having eliminated all competition and insured peer approval of any action it took Grand Lodges were in a position to exercise absolute power. And power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Some say that after the Morgan affair American Freemasonry never fully recovered, that it was never the same again. Perhaps Grand Masters saw a need for greater control in order to be able to thwart such local actions in the future. Still Grand Lodges and their chartered local Lodges and individual Freemasons existed fairly harmoniously from the Post Civil War period until the 1960s. But there was no question who was the boss. The Vietnam War authored a whole generation of dropouts who refused to join anything. Freemasonry skipped a whole generation and its leadership stayed in power for a double shift. Many a new Mason in the 60s saw in his Lodge predominately men old enough to be his Grandfather. Grand Lodges were governed by men in their 70s and 80s.

The post Vietnam decline in membership and the rapid increase in technology was a double whammy that hit Grand Lodges like a sledgehammer. The old guard leadership was not able to change with the times. First of all Grand Lodges felt that local Lodges had dropped the ball and weren’t trying hard enough. Grand Lodges in the post WWII rapid growth spurt had committed Freemasonry to buildings, programs and charities it could not sustain with the decline in membership and consequently the drop in revenue. Grand Lodges needed more money and they did not have the confidence in their local Lodges to provide it. So as what usually happens in a power vacuum, Grand Lodge filled it by taking over and mandating programs and policies upon its local Lodges. Secondly the rise of the Information Age and the widespread use of the computer and the Internet was not only something Freemasonry was not prepared for but also something it fought, tooth and nail. The Old guard who stayed in power for an extended period because Masonic membership skipped a whole generation were so far removed from the new Masons joining the Craft that they not only looked down with scorn upon the newer methods and ways of the young but they actually forbade their use inside Freemasonry.

Consequently many Grand Lodges, as well as local Lodges, refused to install computer systems. When individual Masons set up Masonic websites and forums for Masonic discussion, some Grand Masters confiscated them or ordered them to be closed down, Grand Masters proclaiming that only they could speak for Freemasonry in its jurisdiction. Most Grand Lodges were very slow to adopt computer technology and get on board with Grand Lodge websites. In many cases to this day the systems used are way behind the latest technology and run by volunteers instead of paid professionals in the field. Even today many Grand Lodges refuse to allow transmission of reports it demands from its chartered Lodges to be filed over the Internet. Even today some Grand Lodges are muzzling its members.

The lag behind the times continues. How many Grand Masters and other Grand Lodge officers today Twitter? How many are on Facebook? My Place? How many text message? How many have a personal website? How many operate a blog? How many carry laptops with them wherever they may go? Why is it that Grand Lodge websites do not operate Masonic discussion forums? Why is it that Grand Lodges are not doing Masonic radio podcasts? Grand Lodges are like some people I know, stuck in the 50s.

The erosion of local power and the transfer of that power to Grand Lodges was a slow gradual process that some Masons objected to but few made a federal case out of. The pinnacle of American Freemasonry occurred from 1870 to 1950 when American Freemasonry grew strongly, built lavish beautiful buildings, stocked the Side Bodies, and authored some of the best writings on Freemasonry ever. I can remember as Master of my Lodge in 1999 reading the minutes of my Lodge in the corresponding Communication of 1899 when the Lodge had 800 members and the average attendance was 100 Brothers. When Freemasonry is flourishing, when there are fewer problems, gripes and concerns get put on the back burner. But when there is a crisis all of a sudden what seemed trivial now becomes a major concern.

And the crisis for Grand Lodges from 1960 to the present day has been the continuous decline in membership and the loss in revenue because of that decline. For fifty years now Grand Lodges have become obsessed with trying to increase membership and get more money. In the process they have tightened the screws of authority and created programs and issued rulings that are very unpopular with the rank and file of the Craft. The highly centralized absolute authority of collective Freemasonry no longer seems to care about the education and development of the individual Mason. Instead of fostering Masonic discussion, Masonic instruction, Masonic education, Masonic authorship, and the dissemination of Masonic knowledge, Grand Lodges are pushing One Day classes, fundraisers, fish frys and community action and charitable endeavors turning American Freemasonry into a Service Club. The focus has switched from making good men better to improving society. Charity in Individualistic Freemasonry was a principle taught to individual Masons who then decided how they would individually apply that virtue inside and outside the Craft. Today every Masonic endeavor is a function of the Lodge performed by the collective by decisions made from the top.

Fifty years of collective Freemasonry has developed a cadre of Freemasons who now believe that Freemasonry is the Institution rather than a philosophy. I call these Masons “Institutionalists.” They talk a lot about preserving the Institution of Freemasonry, Recognition, The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction and clandestine and irregular Freemasonry. They put the well being of the Institution before the well being of the individual. Their Grand Lodge can never do wrong. They concentrate power into the hands of a collectivist, top down, inner circle oligarchy that seeks to create a closed society governed much like the US Army. They garner awards and display proudly on their chest jewels and pins that have nothing to do with their Masonic knowledge or scholarship. They defend their Grand Lodge from any thought or idea in Freemasonry that the inner circle disapproves of. They refuse Masonic discourse with Freemasons in other Obediences and support their Grand Lodge’s right to tell its members who they can and cannot talk to. They create private research societies open only to members of Mainstream Masonry. They refuse to take any action against the rogue Masonic regime in West Virginia while at the same time shutting out Co-Masonry and the GOUSA. They will not exert any pressure on racist Grand Lodges to admit black men and recognize Prince Hall yet they will get on private Masonic Sites and wag their finger about guests from other Obediences being permitted access.

Today there has developed a growing chasm in Freemasonry. The millennial generation is upon us and many are more traditional than their fathers and are seekers who are trying to place more meaning into their lives. Once again we see the rise of mystical thought and inner search that was a part of Freemasonry 150 years ago. The Millennials don’t care about petty distinctions. A Grand Lodge is a Grand Lodge. They want gender and racial equality to be a part of anything to which they associate themselves. Freemasonry the thought appeals to them, Freemasonry the practice does not.

Consequently many Masons today are bypassing or boycotting formal Masonic Communications while at the same time becoming very active in Masonic websites and the intellectual pursuits of Freemasonry so reminiscent of Individualistic Freemasonry. Masonic Internet sites like Freemason Information, Phoenixmasonry and Master Mason as well as individual Masonic blogs are flourishing while Lodge attendance is at an all time low. Collectivist Freemasonry stifles creativity and reform. It enables entrenched, outmoded ideas to perpetuate a society that lacks a connection with today’s generation. It is headed down a path of self-defeat. The answer for Mainstream Grand Lodges is to return to Individualistc Freemasonry.

(1) “Revolutionary Brotherhood” by Steven C. Bullock, pg. 29

Are We Reading the Signs?

Posted on March 27, 2009August 7, 2021 by TimBryce | 5 Comments

If there is anything constant in life, it is change.
– Bryce’s Law

It is no secret that membership in Freemasonry is either stagnating or in decline in most jurisdictions. Some Grand Lodges pay attention to our membership numbers, others do not. But I contend there are other important indicators we should be paying attention to; namely, membership and participation in the allied and appendant bodies of Freemasonry.

Attendance in our youth organizations (DeMolay, Rainbow, Job’s Daughters) are deteriorating. In Florida for example, just 30 years ago we had vibrant youth organizations; today they are few and far between. The Order of the Eastern Star and clubs like the High Twelve are also diminishing. Their members are getting older, grayer, and are not being replaced by new people. The Scottish and York Rite bodies are still reeling from the Shrine’s decision a few years ago to bypass these groups in order to join the Shrine. True, they have organized many one-day classes, but their numbers continue to drop. And even the Shrine is still experiencing membership problems; so much so, there are whisperings to negate the prerequisite of being a Mason to join the Shrine.

We could look at the decline of these fine organizations and blame it on bad management, and perhaps we would be right, but I believe the problem is more fundamental than this; that the real problem is our failure to adapt to changing times.

Following World War II, Masonic institutions experienced considerable growth during the 1950’s and 1960’s, our ” go-go” years. But our growth was arrested in the 1980’s and began to decline thereafter. The “go-go” years may have been great for membership but I feel this is when the fraternity began to stagnate. We had our way so long that we didn’t see any need for change and developed an attitude that nothing was wrong. In short, we became complacent. This attitude is probably the single biggest reason for the declining state of the fraternity today.

The reality is that the interests of people today have changed; they are not the same as back in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

For example, I can’t begin to tell you how many people have observed the dress and ceremonies of groups like DeMolay, Job’s Daughters, Eastern Star, etc. and told me it was “old fashioned” and “cornball.” They giggle and say the costumes and dress are something out of the 1940’s, certainly not something they want to be associated with. Their activities appear trivial if not totally meaningless. The point is, regardless of the noble intentions of these fine organizations, people perceive them as archaic. What is needed is a face lift. There is nothing wrong with the purpose and lessons inculcated by these institutions, but rather, it is the facade that needs to be updated. For example, are the capes worn by some of our youth organizations really necessary? Couldn’t something more contemporary be devised?

Advertisers have long understood the need for maintaining a contemporary image to sell products. This is why we have seen subtle changes over the years in familiar icons such as Aunt Jemimah, Betty Crocker, and the woman in the Columbia Pictures logo. Either get with the times or fall into obscurity. Unfortunately, this is what is happening to our allied and appendant bodies; they need to either reinvent their image or fall behind.

And Blue Lodges, representing the bedrock of Freemasonry, better be paying attention to all of this as well, less they face the same fate.

I don’t know why, but the old-guard of the fraternity resists any form of change. Perhaps it is a sign of senility. Nonetheless, changes are in the offing if the fraternity and its satellite organizations are to survive. But the younger members are growing weary of fighting with the old-guard over changes. So much so, there is a clever movement underfoot not to even to try to change existing lodges but, instead, to create totally new Lodges who are unencumbered by change and chart a new and imaginative course for Freemasonry.

Understandably, these new Lodges are attracting the younger members. So much so, that the older Lodges are withering and dying on the vine. It is unfortunate that such an approach is necessary, but the reality is that our older members tend to resist any form of change, leaving no other choice for our younger members. Frankly, I cannot argue with the logic of this move.

Bottom-line: We either evolve or face extinction.

Keep the Faith.

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
“A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry”

Article reprinted with permission of the author and FreemasonInformation.com

Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.

Also be sure to check out Tim’s “Pet Peeve of the Week” (non-Masonic related).

Robert Davis 33°, GC, Secretary of the Guthrie Oklahoma Scottish Rite

Posted on October 30, 2008December 27, 2021 by Greg Stewart | 2 Comments

Join us in this episode as we meet and talk with Robert Davis 33°. Together in this episode, Greg and Dean go deep with Br. Davis on his intimate family connections with Freemasonry, the Guthrie Scottish Rite, and the future of Freemasonry in Oklahoma and the rest of the nation.

Br. Robert is the author of Understanding Manhood in America and the writer behind the blog Papers of Robert G. Davis. Who can argue that experience and leadership are two of the most fundamental elements of a successful lodge, but how do you develop those elements? Leading change is one way, but not in a destructive manner, which is at the heart of this interview.

In our discussion we focus on Oklahoma Masonry, the Guthrie College of the Consistory study program, the role of the “mature masculine” in Freemasonry, and his thoughts on the future of Craft.

In this program we talk about the Guthrie Scottish Rite and its College of the Consistory program and touch on a wide range of topics, including:

Br. Davis’s history in Freemasonry and the factors in his life that led him to it.
The relationship between the quest of manhood and the role Freemasonry plays in it.
Leadership and successful lodges at the local level.
How to bring change to lodge (when change is desired) and
How activity breeds activity in any organization

Without a doubt you will find a point of deep connection to Br. Davis and with what he has to say. He is probably as traditional as traditional Masonry gets but with an open stance of improving the fraternity and seeing it grow in the future. At his core is the identity of the masculine male, manhood, and the recovery of that role in America today.

More on the web:

https://robertgdavis.net/about/
https://www.gloklahoma.com/member/robert-g-davis/

This show was originally recorded November 2, 2008, at 6PM PST on the Masonic Central Podcast.