Thursday, July 02, 2020
Prince Hall and Me
There has been much ado in the Masonic world for the last few years about whether or not Prince Hall Masonry and regular Masonry should begin communicating with one another. This would allow, minimum, PHA (Prince Hall Affiliate) and regular Masons to sit in Lodge with one another and even discuss and attend one another's Degree work.
Tennessee is one of the few hold-out states that has not, as of yet, allowed Masonic communication between a PHA GL and our Grand Lodge.
While the idea of Masons of every color being able to sit in Lodge together should be one of the ultimate goals of our Ancient Craft, the question remains, how should we go about achieving such a lofty goal?
Many in our state say, "It's time." That may be so, but "time" for what?
As much as I would love to sit in Lodge with Brother Shaquille O'Neal, there are some things we should seriously consider.
The presumption that "Masonry" should receive all who wear a ring and refer themselves as "Masons" is at best complicated and at worst problematic.
These days, our country is beset with much pandering and political correctness. Our own Grand Lodge is not immune to it and, I imagine, the pressure is great to open our doors to "men of color" and any hesitancy or concern for the how is quickly alleged as prejudice by the willfully ignorant and the agenda driven who are only concerned with enhancing their own power and, quite frankly, emasculating those they see as "privileged."
Incidentally, we have been having a similar struggle over the idea of allowing homosexual men as members of our Lodges, but that would be another blog. Though, I can't help but wonder, is there a connection between the two movements? Perhaps not so coincidentally, both movements against traditional regular Masonry have come to the forefront more or less recently and interestingly coincide with the growing attack on universal, traditional values. It seems there is a lot of taste for revenge among those who have felt victimization and oppression, imagined or real. This often provokes men to lash out at any easy target. Particularly what they see as elitist and exclusive.
Back to the subject in discussion.
If anything, Masonry is about regulations and qualifications. I've been fortunate enough to attend the Grand Lodge session in Nashville on at least three occasions and have witnessed that much time is invested in voting on regulations, qualifications and the clarification thereof. Additionally, there will usually be a vote, after much research by committee, on whether or not we should communicate with a particular foreign Grand Lodge who has sought fellowship with us. Sometimes, the vote is up; sometimes, the vote is down.
Obviously, not all who call themselves Masons are welcomed into our society.
Perhaps, a little history is in order here.
I won't try to delve into exactly how long speculative Masonry has been around. (No, none of those arguments about the pyramid builders here.) We know the first Grand Lodge went public in 1717. This was, obviously, formed from pre-existing Lodges. These men, at that time, for whatever reason, decided to admit to the world that they were Freemasons and were proud to be as much.
As speculative Masonry spread throughout Europe, North America and elsewhere, certain men of interest in our fair land, while still only territories of Great Britain, petitioned the GLE (Grand Lodge of England) for charters authorizing them to form Lodges and Grand Lodges, work and make Masons in the several colonies. Exclusive Charters were granted to do the aforementioned within the confines of their particular territories. They all agreed that spilling over the lines separating the colonies, later states, was against the rules and against the charters granted by the GLE. Each Grand Lodge was sovereign within its own borders.
Time passed and, alas, we had that little spat with England. Although many Brothers on both sides often afforded consideration and kindness to one another, communication between American GL's and the GLE were then stained if not broken.
Sometime around that time, there appeared a black freeman, interestingly enough, named Prince Hall, in the New England area who received his degrees from a GLE affiliated Lodge. (Yes, there were a lot Tories in our nation at that time.) He organized, it's said, the first Masonic Lodge among black freemen in the Colonies. Though not given authority to do so by the GLE, African Lodge No. 459 then began to perform Degree work and Charter Lodges among other free blacks.
Much of this history, for obvious reasons, is speculative even to the point of legendary. There is argument as to several claimants of the name Prince Hall or whether he was an actual person. (Likely he was, if for no other reason, due to the number of Lodges created then and their descendant Lodges today. Along with contemporary witnesses and records of him.)
Now, here was the situation. A black man, possibly loyal to the crown, (differing opinions on that,) was starting Lodges in New England while the rest of the colonial Masons are divided in their loyalty to king or country. Things could only get worse!
There is a question that needs to be asked here: Was prejudice and bigotry a factor in the exclusion of PHA Masons from regular Masonry? I believe that I would be living in denial, (and that's just not a river in Mississippi,) if I said there was not. Men are men and men like men who are like them. With many exceptions, black men socialize with black men and white men socialize with white men. Asian with Asian. Latino with Latino. No wrong in any of that! The wrong is when we purposely avoid one another and/or view the other as "less." So, yes, white men of that time in Lodges weren't exactly what we might call welcoming to black men and, sadly, narrow-mindedness toward even good Christian men would often keep men without our doors who would've have enhanced the Lodge.
Frankly, I have no doubt that a "poor white trash" boy such as myself could never have gotten past the blackball, fifty, seventy-five or, definitely, two-hundred years ago. Yes, I am thankful that some things in Masonry have changed. I certainly hope for the better!
On the other hand, it must be asked, who is to say that these PHA Lodges were so desperate to join white Lodges. Perhaps, as today, they have their own way of conducting business and socializing and are uninterested in being beggars to any man. From what I gather, though the degree work would be recognizable to regular Masons, some of the teachings are at variance with ours. I don't mean a different morality, just that some of their legends and heroes are presented differently. (I'm not sure all of our heroes would be their heroes.) I've even received witness from an Entered Apprentice in our Lodge that he was told he was not welcome to join a local PHA Lodge because he is white.
Touche!
But I digress!
After the war, these Lodges were not recognized by regular Masonry in America. If for no other reason than that they were formed within the territorial bounds of former colonies that were now sovereign states. States that had been chartered by the GLE to have exclusive rights to form Lodges within their own boundaries. Not to mention some, though there are those who would argue otherwise, had been loyal to a king who had become the enemy of the people of the continent.
Even more so, communication became, at least for a while, suspended between what would become known as PHA Lodges and the GLE. (Seems there was problem with dues left unpaid.) The problem, I understand was later resolved, but the GLE was probably not overly upset to foster a little strife, even between the Masonic citizens of their former fellow subjects. (Yeah, the Grand Master of the GLE at the time was King George's little brother.)
So, what we end up with is this: Eventually, many, many, MANY PHA Lodges were formed across the ever-broadening USA. All being founded within sovereign borders controlled by regular GL's. GL's who either received their charters directly from the GLE or from another Grand Lodge who received theirs from the GLE. (Tennessee, upon becoming a state, was granted a charter from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina who, in turn, had received theirs from the GLE.)
It gets even worse. For whatever reason, and I can imagine a few, among the black community, many PHA GL's began to form who actually had no connection to even the original PHA Lodges. They consisted of unscrupulous men, who attained enough information about Masonry, which was not that hard to do, and began giving out, or selling out, degrees and forming Lodges and GL's that those who have at least a bona fide connection to Prince Hall won't even recognize. (Bogus Lodges.) This has become worsened in the modern, internet age where information and fanciful websites are both abundant and anyone who is willing to cough up a few hundred dollars, or more, can receive an exquisite title, some spiffy duds and jewelry and, after hanging a square and compasses over their door, presto, chang-o, they are "Freemasons."
A quick online search for PHA GL's in Tennessee will reveal half a dozen or more. Actually, it's not all that uncommon, in a larger city, for there to be at least two Lodges who belong to different PHA GL's who don't communicate. Yes, it's a quandary!
So, now many Southern states, some already have, are considering holding communication with PHA GL's. Most, if not all, northern states have already done so.
This begs a very important question, though.
Sure, but which one?
Too many who have too much to prove are rushing far too fast to join with too many who are too far removed to be anywhere near verifiable through the haze of history. Many Masonic leaders are so afraid of being called names, albeit awful names, that they will do most anything, or maybe anything, to prove they are neither bigots or racists.
The problem is, when you do something to prove you're not a bigot, you've just proved you are. When you go out of your way to prove to a man of different pigmentation that you really, really, golly-gee, just have nothing against any of his kind, your condescension and pandering reaches deplorable depths. If you feel you have something to prove, then you most certainly have something to prove.
If we are going to seriously consider, as regular Masons, communicating with PHA GL's, we should first be willing and eager to allow Godly, patriotic men of every color into our Lodges to take the degrees. Otherwise, boasting that we communicate with PHA is only a novelty, a trinket and a trifle. We would make PHA Lodges no more than a token to us. It would be our way of saying, "See, I've got black friends too!"
Those who seek to enter our ranks for any reason other than a desire to join the Children of Light, grow and fellowship with us, will never be satisfied with any acquiescence we may offer them. They are not interested in friendship, morality and brotherly love. No, they are interested only in building themselves up by tearing everyone else down.
So, I ask: Are all Masons regular Masons now? Is there no longer such a thing as clandestine Masonry? Are we all the same in spite of our differences? I suppose if you just don't care, then you just don't care.
If we're not allowed to close ours doors to whom we choose, to be exclusive, to be esoteric, then they are no longer our doors. Precisely what other changes in our Ancient and Honorable Order would come next? Exactly at what point, then, would Masonry no longer be Masonry anymore? If Masonry isn't worth protecting, if it isn't worth working for, if it isn't worth humbling ourselves in gratitude to be even counted among such men, then, perhaps, we should simply close our doors!
I've often wondered if the time is not coming when Masonry should return back underground. As in olden times past. Well, I hope that doesn't become our only option.
Again, I digress.
So, will PHA Masons understand? Will the, so to speak, progressives in our Lodges understand? Will the profane understand? No, many will not understand our stance, but we have nothing to prove! Our call, as Masons, is to do what is right because it is right. There are times when we must follow the good and true even when the whole world is against us. Like the man said, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!"
Tennessee is one of the few hold-out states that has not, as of yet, allowed Masonic communication between a PHA GL and our Grand Lodge.
While the idea of Masons of every color being able to sit in Lodge together should be one of the ultimate goals of our Ancient Craft, the question remains, how should we go about achieving such a lofty goal?
Many in our state say, "It's time." That may be so, but "time" for what?
As much as I would love to sit in Lodge with Brother Shaquille O'Neal, there are some things we should seriously consider.
The presumption that "Masonry" should receive all who wear a ring and refer themselves as "Masons" is at best complicated and at worst problematic.
These days, our country is beset with much pandering and political correctness. Our own Grand Lodge is not immune to it and, I imagine, the pressure is great to open our doors to "men of color" and any hesitancy or concern for the how is quickly alleged as prejudice by the willfully ignorant and the agenda driven who are only concerned with enhancing their own power and, quite frankly, emasculating those they see as "privileged."
Incidentally, we have been having a similar struggle over the idea of allowing homosexual men as members of our Lodges, but that would be another blog. Though, I can't help but wonder, is there a connection between the two movements? Perhaps not so coincidentally, both movements against traditional regular Masonry have come to the forefront more or less recently and interestingly coincide with the growing attack on universal, traditional values. It seems there is a lot of taste for revenge among those who have felt victimization and oppression, imagined or real. This often provokes men to lash out at any easy target. Particularly what they see as elitist and exclusive.
Back to the subject in discussion.
If anything, Masonry is about regulations and qualifications. I've been fortunate enough to attend the Grand Lodge session in Nashville on at least three occasions and have witnessed that much time is invested in voting on regulations, qualifications and the clarification thereof. Additionally, there will usually be a vote, after much research by committee, on whether or not we should communicate with a particular foreign Grand Lodge who has sought fellowship with us. Sometimes, the vote is up; sometimes, the vote is down.
Obviously, not all who call themselves Masons are welcomed into our society.
Perhaps, a little history is in order here.
I won't try to delve into exactly how long speculative Masonry has been around. (No, none of those arguments about the pyramid builders here.) We know the first Grand Lodge went public in 1717. This was, obviously, formed from pre-existing Lodges. These men, at that time, for whatever reason, decided to admit to the world that they were Freemasons and were proud to be as much.
As speculative Masonry spread throughout Europe, North America and elsewhere, certain men of interest in our fair land, while still only territories of Great Britain, petitioned the GLE (Grand Lodge of England) for charters authorizing them to form Lodges and Grand Lodges, work and make Masons in the several colonies. Exclusive Charters were granted to do the aforementioned within the confines of their particular territories. They all agreed that spilling over the lines separating the colonies, later states, was against the rules and against the charters granted by the GLE. Each Grand Lodge was sovereign within its own borders.
Time passed and, alas, we had that little spat with England. Although many Brothers on both sides often afforded consideration and kindness to one another, communication between American GL's and the GLE were then stained if not broken.
Sometime around that time, there appeared a black freeman, interestingly enough, named Prince Hall, in the New England area who received his degrees from a GLE affiliated Lodge. (Yes, there were a lot Tories in our nation at that time.) He organized, it's said, the first Masonic Lodge among black freemen in the Colonies. Though not given authority to do so by the GLE, African Lodge No. 459 then began to perform Degree work and Charter Lodges among other free blacks.
Much of this history, for obvious reasons, is speculative even to the point of legendary. There is argument as to several claimants of the name Prince Hall or whether he was an actual person. (Likely he was, if for no other reason, due to the number of Lodges created then and their descendant Lodges today. Along with contemporary witnesses and records of him.)
Now, here was the situation. A black man, possibly loyal to the crown, (differing opinions on that,) was starting Lodges in New England while the rest of the colonial Masons are divided in their loyalty to king or country. Things could only get worse!
There is a question that needs to be asked here: Was prejudice and bigotry a factor in the exclusion of PHA Masons from regular Masonry? I believe that I would be living in denial, (and that's just not a river in Mississippi,) if I said there was not. Men are men and men like men who are like them. With many exceptions, black men socialize with black men and white men socialize with white men. Asian with Asian. Latino with Latino. No wrong in any of that! The wrong is when we purposely avoid one another and/or view the other as "less." So, yes, white men of that time in Lodges weren't exactly what we might call welcoming to black men and, sadly, narrow-mindedness toward even good Christian men would often keep men without our doors who would've have enhanced the Lodge.
Frankly, I have no doubt that a "poor white trash" boy such as myself could never have gotten past the blackball, fifty, seventy-five or, definitely, two-hundred years ago. Yes, I am thankful that some things in Masonry have changed. I certainly hope for the better!
On the other hand, it must be asked, who is to say that these PHA Lodges were so desperate to join white Lodges. Perhaps, as today, they have their own way of conducting business and socializing and are uninterested in being beggars to any man. From what I gather, though the degree work would be recognizable to regular Masons, some of the teachings are at variance with ours. I don't mean a different morality, just that some of their legends and heroes are presented differently. (I'm not sure all of our heroes would be their heroes.) I've even received witness from an Entered Apprentice in our Lodge that he was told he was not welcome to join a local PHA Lodge because he is white.
Touche!
But I digress!
After the war, these Lodges were not recognized by regular Masonry in America. If for no other reason than that they were formed within the territorial bounds of former colonies that were now sovereign states. States that had been chartered by the GLE to have exclusive rights to form Lodges within their own boundaries. Not to mention some, though there are those who would argue otherwise, had been loyal to a king who had become the enemy of the people of the continent.
Even more so, communication became, at least for a while, suspended between what would become known as PHA Lodges and the GLE. (Seems there was problem with dues left unpaid.) The problem, I understand was later resolved, but the GLE was probably not overly upset to foster a little strife, even between the Masonic citizens of their former fellow subjects. (Yeah, the Grand Master of the GLE at the time was King George's little brother.)
So, what we end up with is this: Eventually, many, many, MANY PHA Lodges were formed across the ever-broadening USA. All being founded within sovereign borders controlled by regular GL's. GL's who either received their charters directly from the GLE or from another Grand Lodge who received theirs from the GLE. (Tennessee, upon becoming a state, was granted a charter from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina who, in turn, had received theirs from the GLE.)
It gets even worse. For whatever reason, and I can imagine a few, among the black community, many PHA GL's began to form who actually had no connection to even the original PHA Lodges. They consisted of unscrupulous men, who attained enough information about Masonry, which was not that hard to do, and began giving out, or selling out, degrees and forming Lodges and GL's that those who have at least a bona fide connection to Prince Hall won't even recognize. (Bogus Lodges.) This has become worsened in the modern, internet age where information and fanciful websites are both abundant and anyone who is willing to cough up a few hundred dollars, or more, can receive an exquisite title, some spiffy duds and jewelry and, after hanging a square and compasses over their door, presto, chang-o, they are "Freemasons."
A quick online search for PHA GL's in Tennessee will reveal half a dozen or more. Actually, it's not all that uncommon, in a larger city, for there to be at least two Lodges who belong to different PHA GL's who don't communicate. Yes, it's a quandary!
So, now many Southern states, some already have, are considering holding communication with PHA GL's. Most, if not all, northern states have already done so.
This begs a very important question, though.
Sure, but which one?
Too many who have too much to prove are rushing far too fast to join with too many who are too far removed to be anywhere near verifiable through the haze of history. Many Masonic leaders are so afraid of being called names, albeit awful names, that they will do most anything, or maybe anything, to prove they are neither bigots or racists.
The problem is, when you do something to prove you're not a bigot, you've just proved you are. When you go out of your way to prove to a man of different pigmentation that you really, really, golly-gee, just have nothing against any of his kind, your condescension and pandering reaches deplorable depths. If you feel you have something to prove, then you most certainly have something to prove.
If we are going to seriously consider, as regular Masons, communicating with PHA GL's, we should first be willing and eager to allow Godly, patriotic men of every color into our Lodges to take the degrees. Otherwise, boasting that we communicate with PHA is only a novelty, a trinket and a trifle. We would make PHA Lodges no more than a token to us. It would be our way of saying, "See, I've got black friends too!"
Those who seek to enter our ranks for any reason other than a desire to join the Children of Light, grow and fellowship with us, will never be satisfied with any acquiescence we may offer them. They are not interested in friendship, morality and brotherly love. No, they are interested only in building themselves up by tearing everyone else down.
So, I ask: Are all Masons regular Masons now? Is there no longer such a thing as clandestine Masonry? Are we all the same in spite of our differences? I suppose if you just don't care, then you just don't care.
If we're not allowed to close ours doors to whom we choose, to be exclusive, to be esoteric, then they are no longer our doors. Precisely what other changes in our Ancient and Honorable Order would come next? Exactly at what point, then, would Masonry no longer be Masonry anymore? If Masonry isn't worth protecting, if it isn't worth working for, if it isn't worth humbling ourselves in gratitude to be even counted among such men, then, perhaps, we should simply close our doors!
I've often wondered if the time is not coming when Masonry should return back underground. As in olden times past. Well, I hope that doesn't become our only option.
Again, I digress.
So, will PHA Masons understand? Will the, so to speak, progressives in our Lodges understand? Will the profane understand? No, many will not understand our stance, but we have nothing to prove! Our call, as Masons, is to do what is right because it is right. There are times when we must follow the good and true even when the whole world is against us. Like the man said, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!"
We will be a witness to the world of the Holiness of the Lord when we treat all men, whatever pigmentation or membership status as children of God. Imagine the power of our testimony when we judge men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That would be true Masonry!
I've always said, Masonry isn't everyone's cup of tea. I have many kinfolk and friends who are not Masons. Not every man needs to be in our Lodge though I may wish that all men of character would be.
As Julian H. Pettitt, Jr., P.M, said, "Some men are Masons already. They just need to come in and take their degrees."
So, do I want to sit in Lodge with good, black, white, yellow, brown and red men? Yes! Do I want to sit in Lodge with black men because they're black? No! Do I want to sit in Lodge with them because they are, like my current Brothers, good men? Most emphatically, yes!
Finally, let us be welcoming to all men without compromising our principles and our Lodge. Otherwise, we and they will know it is only pandering and compromise. Then, the value for all concerned will be at least lessened and possibly bankrupted.
While there are likely many PHA and regular GL's who sincerely seek fellowship, they usually are drowned out and manipulated by those of a more cynical inclination. We must not allow the embittered to undermine a time-tested producer of better men for the sake of their own chafed feelings. We must be stalwart and never surrender to vain hope that we might somehow, though yielding and compromising, avoid the slings and arrows of life that standing staunchly for our convictions might bring. We must be guarded, watchful and circumspect. We must be meek as lambs, but wise as foxes.
My father, Rev. Floyd Davis, was a very wise man and he would often say, concerning such situations, "If any way will do, then no way will do just as well."
I've always said, Masonry isn't everyone's cup of tea. I have many kinfolk and friends who are not Masons. Not every man needs to be in our Lodge though I may wish that all men of character would be.
As Julian H. Pettitt, Jr., P.M, said, "Some men are Masons already. They just need to come in and take their degrees."
So, do I want to sit in Lodge with good, black, white, yellow, brown and red men? Yes! Do I want to sit in Lodge with black men because they're black? No! Do I want to sit in Lodge with them because they are, like my current Brothers, good men? Most emphatically, yes!
Finally, let us be welcoming to all men without compromising our principles and our Lodge. Otherwise, we and they will know it is only pandering and compromise. Then, the value for all concerned will be at least lessened and possibly bankrupted.
While there are likely many PHA and regular GL's who sincerely seek fellowship, they usually are drowned out and manipulated by those of a more cynical inclination. We must not allow the embittered to undermine a time-tested producer of better men for the sake of their own chafed feelings. We must be stalwart and never surrender to vain hope that we might somehow, though yielding and compromising, avoid the slings and arrows of life that standing staunchly for our convictions might bring. We must be guarded, watchful and circumspect. We must be meek as lambs, but wise as foxes.
My father, Rev. Floyd Davis, was a very wise man and he would often say, concerning such situations, "If any way will do, then no way will do just as well."
Labels: England, Freemasonry, GLE, History, Masonry, PHA, Prince Hall
