We are especially proud, when reviewing the past, to count among our predecessors a number of outstanding men, starting with those who sought and won our national freedom, those who established our government, and with those who have labored, over the course of more than two centuries, to protect and preserve the American way of life. We are grateful for the many contributions of our national leaders who were Masons, and we find satisfaction in knowing that they, not unlike us, knelt at an altar and took upon themselves obligations to which we have all assented.

It is a pity, however, that our knowledge of how Masonry actually influenced the lives of these leaders is so limited. Even more pitiful is the fact that we cannot augment our restricted knowledge of our leaders and their commitment to the Craft because of limitations imposed by the inadequacy of source documents that are available to us. Hence, in most instances, we are not able to state with certainty how Masonry may have influenced the thoughts and deeds of those we revere.

Did these men, our Masonic heroes of yesterday, choose Freemasonry because of their appreciation of its teachings or, conversely, did they, after forming their personal moral and spiritual beliefs elsewhere, seek out like-minded men in the temples of Freemasonry? Unfortunately, because of a dearth of verifiable information, we will never know. But we can be grateful for their favorable consideration of the fraternity.

In the assessment of the past we need to be especially careful that we not trespass from fact to fantasy, and the fact is that with few exceptions, little is really known about our Masonic forefathers other than where and when they took their degrees. Minutes in American Lodges, up to the dawn of the 20th century, tend to be brief to the extreme and, unfortunately, in far too many instances, even those records, scanty as they might be, have not been adequately preserved, in many instances, for posterity. Proper attribution of Craft accomplishments, therefore, is usually very difficult, and sometimes it is entirely impossible.

Nevertheless we must acknowledge that in the past, much was accomplished. Beautiful temples were erected, tremendous financial resources were accumulated, and world class charities established by a Craft that was numerically small but philanthropically sensitive to need and opportunity. Our predecessors were truly builders for the future, intent on serving both the today and the tomorrow of their allocated periods of life. That they did so is a matter of record, and by their works, if not their words, they have spoken of their devotion to duty and dedication to principle.

So much for our thumbnail account of what was, a long period about which our store of information must be considered imperfect. While we cannot, in post-facto fashion, fill in the informational voids of our past, we can, if we are diligent, insure that the record that we compile for our posterity will be more complete. In consequence of this very short review of the past as I see it, a few observations about the present - the "what is" period of Masonry - may be useful. Let us begin by recognizing that, for the better part of the four decades leading to the present, we have busied ourselves, almost exclusively, with the examination and identification of fraternal ailments. Almost everyone who is reasonably active in the Craft can, without prompting, recite an almost endless litany of Craft afflictions, capped, of course, with hand wringing accounts of attendance and declining membership. Address these symptoms, so it is said, and the Craft will thereby be returned to good health and prosperity.

Thus far, however, most of our attempts to treat perceived issues have been for naught. Not only have our endeavors fallen short of our aspirations, but in the process, the issues appear to have become ever more pervasive. If this be so, and I believe it is, perhaps we need to look not to ministering to the treatment of the symptoms of fraternal ailments by the application and re-application of expensive and untested remedial programs, but to the identification and subsequent treatment and containment of what may be a fundamental but unappreciated disease - the obvious lack of demonstrated interest in Masonry by Masons.

In my mind, my brethren, the return to health of the Craft will depend in the long run not on quick fixes or gimmicks, but rather upon the fullest appreciation of the depth or lack of depth of the average member's concern for Masonry and its works; upon the understanding of the reasons underlying the Mason's lack of appetite for fraternal involvement; and on the apparent preference of almost all Masons to remain outside, rather than within, the circle of active brethren. The future will depend, in the long run, on the reversal of ingrained and unhealthy attitudinal patterns. Thus our major interest should not rest on the number of members that are on our rolls or on the length of the list of names recorded on the attendance roster. Rather our efforts should focus on finding a solution to the most fundamental, indeed, the root issue for our order- the Freemason's undeveloped interest in Freemasonry. Unfortunately, this is an untreated and contagious malady about which we seem to know very little.

The reality of the present suggests that the future of the Craft will be determined, in large part, by what we do now and in the immediate future. A few years ago, in 1992, Bishop Carl J. Sanders, in an address given at the time of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone of the White House, stated that we were now drinking from wells that we didn't dig and eating the fruit of trees that we didn't plant. With these words he caused us all to appreciate that Masonry is surviving now not on the strength of its own efforts, but in no insignificant way, on the work and on the achievements of our predecessors in the Craft. Put another way, Freemasons have entered the realm of the kept to an amazing degree, and in many instances, Lodges today exist largely and perhaps only because they are able to tap resources that were earned and accumulated in generations long gone.

This fact leads us to ask a few questions. Where are those Lodges that are building to meet both our present and future needs? Where are those Grand Lodges that are laying the groundwork for advancement into the current millennium? Where are those Masonic bodies that have competent visionaries capable of achieving their visions? Who is placing imaginative and feasible plans on the trestleboard, and who is evaluating and marshaling the means by which those plans are to be worked?

In thinking about our answers to these questions we perhaps ought to ask ourselves if Masonry is properly organized for progress in the rapidly changing social environment in which it finds itself.

Indeed, if we successfully identify motivated and capable men to address our most pressing issues, will they be able to implement their plans within the institution as it now stands? Frankly, I don't know. But I do know that the future can be as strong, viable, and influential as we and our leaders will it to be. Let us therefore take heed of the observation of a wise man who once said that the only constant in this world is change; let us accept that change is a part of life. Let us accept it, prepare for it, and cope with it. It is the only way!