The Society

Applying the “Freedom of the Society” Resolution

Jan Nicolaas Kind - Brazil

The Freedom of the Society Resolution affirms the independence of our Society from all other organisations.  The time has come to study the content and significance of this important Resolution, and — more importantly — to apply it as necessary.

The Freedom of the Society Resolution:

The Theosophical Society, while cooperating with all other bodies whose aims and activities make such cooperation possible, is and must remain an organization entirely independent of them, not committed to any objects save its own, and intent on developing its own work on the broadest and most inclusive lines, so as to move towards its own goal as indicated in and by the pursuit of those objects and that Divine Wisdom which in the abstract is implicit in the title ‘The Theosophical Society’. Since Universal Brotherhood and the Wisdom are undefined and unlimited, and since there is complete freedom for each and every member of the Society in thought and in action, the Society seeks ever to maintain its own distinctive and unique character by remaining free of affiliation or identification with any other organization.

Attached versus Unattached Members and Lodges versus Study Centers

Wies Kuiper - The Netherlands

In our Dutch Section, a quarter to a third of the members are unattached to any local group. In addition, the Section has nine Lodges (some of which own their own buildings but whose members are mainly older) and seven Study Centers (whose members are often younger). No new Lodges have been chartered for some fifty years. Yet most of the Study Centers have seven or more members, some as many as twenty-five members. The Study Center members do not want to be concerned with the organizational details of a Lodge, such as formal rules and officers.

I suspect that the Netherlands is not unique in this situation, but that other countries also have many unattached members and more new Study Centers than traditional Lodges.

The Society’s international rules envision a nineteenth-century structure that is not realistic for the twenty-first century in many countries. How should those rules be changed?