Freemasonry: A Very Short Introduction - Andreas Önnerfors 2017
Regularity and recognition
Organizational culture
The thirty-nine paragraphs of General Regulations that were appended to the 1723 version of The Constitutions included detailed rules for individual lodges and for their grand lodge. A lodge is also a decision-making body (here called a ’chapter’) that must keep a book with by-laws and a membership record. A number of paragraphs outline membership requirements. The regulations also detail the procedures for the establishment of new lodges (a separate postscript describes the ceremonial installation of a new lodge). Most of the paragraphs explain the work of the grand lodge, which replicates the administrative structure of individual lodges only on a larger (eventually national) scale.
The grand lodge is a decision-making body to which individual lodges send their representatives, who ’are supposed to speak their mind’ but be bound by a majority vote, which will feed into grand lodge decision-making. New regulations can only be formed with ’the approbation and consent of the majority of all the brethren present[, this] being absolutely necessary to make the same binding and obligatory’. The election of a grand master and the specified ceremonies surrounding these procedures are described at length. A special paragraph explores the possibility of a grand master abusing his power. The general tone of the regulations underlines the freemasons’ ambition to establish conformity in praxis; for instance, paragraph XI states that ’all particular lodges are to observe the same usages as much as possible’ in order to cultivate ’a good understanding among free-masons’.
From the outset, the ’premier’ English grand lodge of ’Moderns’ reserved the right to establish new lodges and to act as the regulatory body in its own territory. Soon after, grand lodges were formed in Ireland and Scotland. Nonetheless, despite the ambitions of these early grand lodges, competing masonic bodies soon evolved in Britain. When the second edition of The Constitutions was published in 1738, Anderson mentioned the existence of grand lodges in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Italy which had been formed following the English example but which had not necessarily been authorized by the English grand lodge. Some of these grand lodges were nonetheless regarded as English provinces. The French term ’Grand Orient’ corresponds in organizational terms to a grand lodge. In masonic systems that have adopted a further hierarchy of chivalric degrees (such as in the Swedish rite), the national masonic bodies are as a rule called ’Orders’.
Matters grew in complexity when a rivalling grand lodge called ’the Antients’ was formed in England in 1751. However, it wasn’t until the 1760s that a more systematic attempt was made to control masonic international affairs and this was by the premier grand lodge of the ’Moderns’. This was occasioned by a second substantial boost in lodge establishments across Europe during the Seven Years War. It was at this time that the ’Moderns’ started to formally recognize non-English grand lodges such as those of France, Sweden, and the Netherlands as independent organizations with their own respective national territory. It was also during the subsequent decades that the first serious international controversies relating to grand lodge authorization took place.
For example, the Swedish grand lodge, which had been established in 1760, cited a French charter from 1737, which was renewed in 1752, as providing the approval for their establishment. However, strictly speaking, the ’Moderns’ had not yet authorized the French masonic bodies which had granted Sweden permission to form masonic lodges. This being the case, during the 1760s, a British diplomatic service secretary set up some masonic lodges in Sweden using a warrant he had received directly from London, and claimed that his lodges represented true masonic authority on Swedish territory. This created a split in Swedish freemasonry, finally resolved in 1771 to the advantage of the Swedish grand lodge. The correspondence relating to this dispute provides evidence of the masonic art in finding balance in issues under dispute.
An even more complex situation occurred with the German grand lodge, Grosse Landesloge der Freimaurer von Deutschland (GLL), which had originally received its constitution from Sweden in 1767—during the period when the authority and legitimacy of the Swedish grand lodge was being questioned. Sweden attempted to unite with the masonic rite of the Strict Observance (SO) during the late 1770s, but this competed with the GLL on German territory. Therefore, the negotiators of SO demanded Sweden withdraw its constitution of the GLL. The Swedish delegates complied with these demands; however, they were unaware that the GLL had in the meantime received a formal warrant from the ’Moderns’ in England. Over the next few years, a massive diplomatic correspondence unfolded between the masonic houses of London, Berlin, and Stockholm—one that is yet to be edited and published.
These episodes demonstrate that international relations in freemasonry were a rather unregulated area with sometimes unexpected alliances. It was during the 19th century that the loose agreements between European (and American) grand lodges first developed into formal coalitions. The first serious split occurred during the 1870s, when the Belgian and French Grand Orients decided to abolish reference to a ’Grand Architect of the Universe’ and to establish the principle of freedom of conscience in taking the masonic oath. The UGLE declared the GODF ’irregular’ despite an absence of any clear-cut definition of regularity. However, it was only in 1929 that the ’home’ grand lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland agreed upon a document entitled the ’Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition’ that would define regularity. The document has eight points and was slightly amended in 1989 (see Box 2).
Box 2 Basic principles for grand lodge recognition
1. Regularity of origin: every grand lodge must be established by a regular grand lodge.
2. Belief in the Great Architect of the Universe is a mandatory membership requirement.
3. All initiates take their oath on or in full view of the open Volume of the Sacred Law (no specific religion is mentioned here).
4. Membership is exclusively male. No intercourse is permitted with mixed lodges or with lodges admitting women.
5. Sovereign jurisdiction exists over the lodges working in the first three degrees. (This regulation indirectly points at a territorial principle.)
6. The ’Three Great Lights of Freemasonry’ (i.e., the Square, Compasses, and Volume of the Sacred Law) must be displayed at lodge meetings.
7. Discussion of religion and politics within the lodge is prohibited.
8. The principles of the ’Antient Landmarks’ shall be observed (although there is no clear definition of what these entail).
With these eight principles, the dividing line between ’regular’ and ’irregular’ was at last established and agreed.
Another organizational principle that developed over the course of the centuries is that of ’territorial sovereignty’. This principle suggests that only one grand lodge can be recognized in any given territory. This rule has been particularly important for freemasonry in the USA, being imposed to avoid territorial arguments between grand lodges of the various states—despite several attempts to create a federal masonic body in the USA. However, African-Americans have developed their own system of freemasonry, called Prince Hall freemasonry, which has clearly fulfilled the criteria for regularity since its establishment in the 18th century. Since Prince Hall grand lodges in some states have also been recognized by fellow mainstream grand lodges in the same state, UGLE decided to do the same, although with some notable exceptions in the southern states.
With various grand lodges operating nationwide, the situation in Germany prior to 1935 was rather complex. In order to resolve this, after 1945, an umbrella grand lodge was inaugurated that now acts as the sole representative of German freemasonry on an international level, despite the existence of five independent and regular grand lodges, which preserved their own internatonal contacts. This demonstrates how, in some cases, regular and recognized grand lodges have maintained contact with irregular and unrecognized grand lodges.
Issues of recognition and regularity mostly affect relations between the UGLE and GODF forms of freemasonry. However, it must be stressed that the differences in masonic practice are extremely marginal. A GODF lodge meeting in Paris and a UGLE lodge meeting in London follow basically the same pattern, and members certainly have similar motives to join and find similar things attractive about membership. The documentary Terra Masonica (2016) by Belgian director Tristan Bourlard provides an impressive insight into the similarity and variety of masonic workings across the globe, regardless of how regular they are seen to be by each other.
In practical terms, the policies that have been in place since 1877/1929 mainly affect the possibility of ’inter-visitation’. The right of individual members to attend masonic lodges of other systems is restricted by grand lodge policies, and an unauthorized visit might result in exclusion from their own lodge or other disciplinary measures. However, despite these policies, mutual visits on an individual lodge level have often taken place.
More important than inter-visitation rights are the financial aspects and the rights over the masonic brand within a given territory. Although most of the income from membership fees is retained at the local lodge level, a considerable amount is transferred to the provincial and national grand lodges; principles of regularity and territorial sovereignty are seen as important in terms of attempting to avoid competition. However, this is an ongoing problem, since in many countries a number of masonic bodies do exist within a single territory and they do compete for the same pool of potential members, at least among those who are able to offer the higher degrees.
The reputational damage to organizations which are seen to be operating outside the framework of established masonic practices is difficult to estimate, but is definitely a key factor for preserving strict rules for regularity, even in non-UGLE recognized settings. For instance, one unrecognized masonic grand lodge is the self-styled ’Masonic High Council the Mother High Council, the World Governing Body of Craft Masonry’. This grand lodge formed in 2005, and, according to its website, runs lodges in most parts of the world—even, most strikingly, in the Middle East. A prominent example of a fake masonic association is the so-called ’Masonic Fraternal Police Department’ (MFPD) in California, which made headlines in 2015. The MFPD claimed a history spanning three millennia with close ties to the Knights Templar; its leader was portrayed on social media wearing full masonic regalia.
On an international level, several attempts have been made to launch an overarching organization of freemasonry. A Bureau International de Relations Maçonniques existed between 1902 and 1921, followed by the Association Maçonique Internationale (which ceased its activities in 1950), and two further successors. Mixed gender and female only masonic organizations have their own international secretariats. Since 1995, the informal World Conference of Regular Masonic Grand Lodges gathers masonic leaders from across the globe.