Monthly Archives: April 2005

Spring watch

Home from the Boston area, where Opening Day is considered one of the great religious holidays that welcome the arrival of spring. I know some of you follow basketball, and there were a number of people wearing orange in church yesterday. I, too, hope that Illinois goes all the way. But basketball is a sport. Baseball is religion.

Depressingly, the Boston Red Sox dropped their season opener to the hated New York Yankees. (Please, no nasty comments from Yankees fans, or I will have to remind you what happened last fall, in just four games.) I’m convinced one of the reasons Universalism began in New England is because we New England baseball fans needed an optimistic religion, a religion that assures us that everything will turn out fine, that some day the Red Sox will be perennial winners.

What’s that you say? Universalism started before baseball was even invented? Bosh! I don’t believe it. Haven’t you heard of the Winchester Profession, the 1803 profession of faith of Universalism, which clearly states “We believe that there is one God, whose nature is love, who will finally restore the Red Sox to their righteous place as perennial winners”? This clause was carried over in modified form to our current profession of faith, the UUA “Principles and Purposes,” where it is clearly stated: “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote the goal of Red Sox Nation with peace, liberty, and the annual demise of the hated Yankees.”

There you have it. Now if we could just get some decent pitching….

Don’t judge a book by its cover…

They say we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. But my partner (who is unchurched) says she thinks you can judge a church by the food they serve.

Judged by that criterion, the Unitarian Universalist Society of Geneva is one of the great UU churches. This year’s Canvass Tea ended about an hour ago. Forty or more people gathered in the Common Room to enjoy absolutely fabulous food prepared by Elba K., William E., and their cadre of fantastic cooks.

Among my favorites were the tiny open-faced cucumber sandwiches, although the turkey salad sandwiches were equally delicate and tasty. I should also mention the chalice cookies, with a touch of frosting for the flame. The cream puffs were rumored to be amazing. The birthday cake (it happened to be the birthday of Elanor L. and Ellen M.) was incredible. A wide array of cheeses. There were so many choices, I didn’t even get to try everything.

(I also have to mention William’s rhubarb pie. He brought it for social hour last night, but there were a few slices left over this morning. This was a poem of a rhubarb pie. Lou P. and I were exchanging ecstatic comments as we ate two of the last slices.)

Needless to say, we had good conversation along with the good food at the Canvass Tea. I sat at a table with some young people, a few middle-aged folks like me, and a couple of elders, and we talked about everything under the sun. Churches are one of the few places where people of all ages can sit together, share a meal, and just talk — it’s one of the main reasons I go to church.

Good food. Good conversation. What more could you ask for?

Spring watch

Sure signs of spring showed up in the past few days —

Early daffodils in full bloom today two blocks from the church, on the south side of the Dupage Library System building — which is right across the street from 18 Campbell St., the house of Augustus Conant, first minister of this church.

Looks like only one of the owlets remains in the nest next to the courthouse — s/he wasn’t there yesterday, nor again today. It is likely the other one has gotten good enough at flying to head off on his/her own.

Tree Swallows are back. I saw several dozen over the river an hour ago, just downstream from the Union Pacific West Line bridge. It looked like they were finding lots of insects — insect hatches are another sign of spring.

And it will really feel like spring tomorrow, because Daylight Savings Times begins. If you’re coming to church tomorrow morning, don’t forget to set your clocks ahead!

Ethics and Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo died yesterday, and our thoughts must be with all her family members as they grieve. But as someone who is not personally affected by her death, I find myself mulling over the ethical questions tha arose during this case, and I have been trying to separate out the ethical issues from the media hype and legal frenzy. The ethical questions prove to be difficult to address, and worthy of serious reflection.

The obvious ethical question is: Under what conditions is it OK to cease medical care for a person? But there are other, related, questions. Ignoring the legal requirements, after someone becomes incapacitated, what ethical standards allow us to say we know a person’s wishes? If someone does not agree with current legislation and/or judicial rulings in this area, is civil disobedience justified? — especially if, as Thoreau mentions in his famous essay on civil disobedience, we can point to higher principles as justification for such civil disobedience? Final question in this area: is this an ethical issue we can safely delegate to the legal realm?

One or two knotty ethical questions get raised by the struggle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her parents. Most people would agree that when we are children, our parents have primary responsiblity for us, but when does that primary responsibility end? Can that primary responsibility end, but then return later at some level, e.g. when an adult child becomes incapacitated, terminally ill, disabled, etc.?

Similarly, we are confronted with ethical questions regarding marriage. (I am limiting my definition of “marriage” as two people joined in a religious or social ceremony of marriage or union, i.e., I’m not including legal definitions of marriage.) Did Terri Schiavo’s husband give up his ethical rights as a husband when he began building another family? What are the ethical rights of a spouse, anyway? In what areas and in what circumstances can spouses speak for each other? All of this raises difficult questions, including some ontological questions, e.g., do spouses lose something of their individuality when they become partners?

Another set of ethical questions concerns how public persons should get involved with the personal and/or family concerns of a single individual or small group of individuals. We might ask a question like this: Given the reality of the impact of mass media on our lives, at what point does the personal become public? — and therefore, what is the ethical responsibility of the public regarding the personal lives of individuals? A related question: If I am a public figure, how do I make the determination that a personal matter has become public, to the point that I can now ethically get involved as a public figure (e.g., elected official, appointed public official, judge, well-known minister, etc.)?

It is unlikely these ethical questions will have simple answers. (Nor will these questions have answers that neatly follow partisan politics!) Unfortunately, I suspect the public debate around the Terri Schiavo case will move away from the ethical issues, in two directions — into the realm of constitutional politics on the one hand, and on the other hand into overly simplistic debate between extreme views at both ends of the spectrum. But the ethical questions are there, and they won’t go away.