Should there be a "cap" on the number of members?

[cemab4y]

I once men a Mason, who belonged to a lodge, which had a "cap" or limit, on the number of members in his lodge. I was astounded, to hear of such a practice.

What do you think? Should there be a limit on the number of men in a lodge? 150 years ago, when America was mostly a rural nation, lodges were small (in members). A lodge with over 100 members, was unimaginable.

Mega-lodges, like mega-churches, are a product of urbanization. Smaller lodges are closing in the USA, at a faster rate than large lodges. There is an "economy of scale", in Freemasonry, large lodges have more financial resources, and can withstand the drawdown in membership numbers that are afflicting Masonry nationwide.

I tend to believe that smaller lodges are more "intimate", and the members are more able to keep tabs on each other. Also, smaller lodges present more Masons with the opportunity to serve Freemasonry in an officer position.

What do you think? Should Grand Lodges impose a "cap" on the number of Masons in individual lodges?

 

[Brother JC]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

I don't see anything right or wrong with it. Smaller lodges seem to have better attendance rates, at least in my experience. Some Appendant bodies have caps, and that seems to work for them.
I would leave it up to the individual lodge to decide.

 

[JJones]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

I think smaller is better. As you pointed out, they tend to be more intimate and there tends to be a higher percentage of active vs. inactive members than larger lodges have.

Ofcourse these same advantages can also become disadvantages, for example, a poisonous member can quickly infect and divide a lodge. I was going to suggest finances could be a problem for smaller lodges but as I was typing it I realized this is a problem for some larger lodges as well.

In the end, I agree with Bro. Trysquare: Perhaps this is a case where each lodge should be allowed to decide what is best for itself.

 

[brother josh]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

Agreed smaller is better we have so many members that its hard to keep in touch with every single one and the new member that come in who know no one don't get that brotherly love that we do our best to give long story short they feel left out as new MMs and they end up not getting involved in our labors I say smaller is better but then what if it was you that petitioned that lodge that had a cap would you petition another lodge or drive a longer distance to attend the meeting if you were forced to go to a different lodge that hasn't met its cap yet ????


My Freemasonry

 

[BryanMaloney]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

In theory, this might be good. In practice, it will be an absolute cap on Masons in a city, because Grand Lodge will be dominated by extant lodges that will not want to see their perceived authority diluted by warranting new lodges that would "take" part of the "territory" of current lodges. Sound silly? I've seen silly politics dominate a lot of organizations.

 

[dfreybur]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

I like the old tradition of lodges hiving when they grow past a certain size. It's a tradition that have been lost across the US.

I oppose any rule that *requires* it.

 

[Brother JC]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

I know of lodges with a maximum number rule, and of others that just prefer to stay small. A hiving rule does seem a little over the top; there's nothing that says a large lodge can't work well.

 

[cacarter]

Re: Should there be a "cap" on the number of membe

I have heard or read of similar t hings before where membership would be capped at 30 before a new lodge was created. I believe I read somewhere that 30 is the largest group of people where close bonds and friendships can be fostered. This could theoretically work in urban areas. A larger lodge building could support multiple lodges and they all pay rent to the home lodge. I know of one building in Dallas that is the home to 3 blue lodges and a chapter, council, and commandery.

I don't think a limit by grand lodge law would occur, but I still like the idea.