« HC SVNT DRACONES | Home | World of Darkness »

Masonic Bling-Goggles

I’ve never been one to wear titles. During my first meeting sitting in the East, I made it abundantly clear that no one is Worshipful Master. No one is a Warden. No one is any office whatsoever. Each of us are but temporary custodians of these Offices, and if, in our execution we come to closely emulate the principles of the Office, and our Brothers choose to call us this or that title, then we are lucky.

I bring this up as a result of a phone conversation I had with a dear Brother today. The conversation went like this:

Bro) How’s it going?

Me) Just a little stress. Brothers not talking to each other.

Bro) There is a lot of that going around.

Me) More than you know.

Bro) It has to do with bling.

Me) You are so right. Brothers without bling, refuse to talk to anyone they think might have bling; and when the bling comes off, the Brothers without it, sustain the illusion that the bling is on.

Bro) Well, I don’t know anything about that.

I mention this not to single out this Brother. He is a true Mason, and I would rather walk through Hell with him, than do much of anything else.

I bring it up to illustrate the point that Masons are Bling-Goggled. Without a doubt there are Masons who seek titles and bling, just to hold it it over everyone else. This I expect. It comes with any territory, and while I do not condone it, it is human nature, and therefore it can be expected. That it is expected means, it is not without a measure of control. However, what overwhelms me more than that is the number of Brothers who make it a point to assume that bling equals corruption, and that all Officers, even a Steward, are evil, corrupt, agenda driven, and incapable of Brotherhood.

How underhanded this is. A Brother is called to serve. Does so. And is hated for their service, by the very Brothers who called him to serve. I can find no reason for such logic, and the truth is, there is no reason or logic to it. Brothers making this conclusion are allowing themselves to be crippled by their own superstitions.

So the conclusion is this, I guess: Some Brothers choose to condemn others because of a perception of bling. Some Brothers seek bling, and condemn those who don’t have it.

Either way, everyone is condemned, so can we just admitt that everyone has violated their Oaths, rebuild bridges, and get on with the business at hand? Are we capable of admitting that the source of our heartbreak is within our own shortcomings, and not those of someone else?

Related Reading

• Scroll II - Og Mandio

PoTS

J.