A Profound Event for Freemasonry

The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) has recently decided to expand its definition of “man” to include transgender men (that is, men who were previously identified by others as women, and who went through a comprehensive process to establish themselves legally and visibly as men.) In addition UGLE decided to let worthy Masons who change their gender legally to female to remain Masons, welcome to sit in Lodge.

Make no mistake: UGLE was crystal clear

that this decision involved the legal protections (or absence thereof) possessed of non-profit associations in Britain/Europe. This decision was heavily influenced by the imagined legal ramifications of continuing to exclude/expel transgendered people once their genders were established and protected by UK law. It’s important here to note that, in the United States, the Constitution and long legal precedent protect associations like ours from such threats at the moment. That being said, it’s not impossible to imagine a day when a person’s gender, once established legally, will carry with it a legal force, as it were, that could result in lawsuits and SCOTUS decisions against Freemasonry, compelling the fraternity to accept/keep transgendered members. This is especially true because there is nowhere in Masonry an established definition of “man”.

Legal ramifications notwithstanding

a purely philosophical discussion of UGLE’s decision was started on the Northwest Masonic Discussion page on Facebook. The matter was, to say the least, urgently debated.  A constant theme was the appeal to the Landmarks, and to the common, everyday definition of “man”.  Of course, Landmarks 18-20 are taken as the basic qualifications for anyone seeking to become a Mason:  Every candidate for initiation must be a man, free born and of lawful age; every Mason must believe in the existence of God as the Grand Architect of the Universe; every Mason must believe in a resurrection to a future life.

A Universal Brotherhood

It’s no secret, and not worth debating, that Masonry has a long tradition of welcoming candidates who place themselves somewhere on very broad spectrum with respect to these Landmarks. “Of lawful age” is a purely local, community standard: 18 years old here, but 21 there; In King Solomon’s Israel, 12 would do. Each candidate’s religious beliefs are also expected to vary widely (and, sometimes, wildly). God as a person, God as a force, God as an organizing principle, as the Word, as the One, as the Whole, as the Good: whatever the case, it’s all good. As for resurrection, we’ve even gone further. Once a distinctly Christian term meant to be taken as a literal, physical return-to-life for the individual, in a physical body, it too has changed over time, and now differs from community to community.

Today, no Blue Lodge Mason (outside of Swedish Rite, perhaps) is expected to believe in Christ or in the physical resurrection of men’s corporeal selves. Instead, we have a broad, loosely interpreted understanding of belief in the “after”. It’s as if the exact definitions of these specific terms in the Landmarks are  intentionally ambiguous. Perhaps that’s to provide Masonry access to the greatest number of good men?  Perhaps the ability to apply local standards to each term allows a measure of local sovereignty and cultural authenticity? Perhaps the ability to broaden an interpretation allows Lodges to adapt to local legal conditions? Perhaps all three of these benefits apply?

Whatever the case

We’ve got to talk about this subject in Oregon. We’ve got to consider all the ramifications of UGLE’s decision.

– Bro Kent Smith (JW, Friendship #160)