It seems like ages ago that the hot topic was what was called "family values". The debate seemed to be a battle between those who saw society in a moral morass of pornography, sexual freedom, divorce, drugs and youngsters run amok--and those who saw the other side as promoting more of a political agenda rather than any serious effort at moral and spiritual development.

I say that this debate seemed like it took place ages ago because we really don't hear much about it any longer. Not that the issues surrounding the debate have disappeared or have been resolved. Far from it. Rather the major media have moved onto other things.

And yet two events this past week brought home to me the enduring importance of this debate on family values. But first, let me say something about the term, "family values". I actually don't like the term, probably because I don't really know what its trying to convey. And its so subjective. What one person may hold as a value may be insignificant to another. To be sure, I know we can all agree on certain values that are of great worth. They are the things in life we consider virtues- truths. Human qualities like honesty, loyalty, responsibility, friendship, faith, compassion and love. But, as we say, the devil is in the details. While we all agree on these virtues, it is how they are expressed--how we make them evident in our lives -- that is at the center of the debate on "family values".

A moment ago I said that one side of the debate on family values is more interested in advancing a political agenda rather than a moral or spiritual one. This is, of course, a generalization. I know that there are people who are genuinely concerned about what they see as the moral decline of our society. And in many ways I agree with them. As one -- may be one of the few -- who proudly declare themselves as a child of the '60s, it concerns me deeply to see sexual promiscuity, widespread drug use and degrading rap music so much a part of the youth culture. Now, "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" may have been a slogan of the 60's -- we may even have spoken about smoking marijuana and LSD in terms of recreational drugs but nobody I knew took "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" to mean a lifestyle -- a way of life.

I often laugh when I hear politicians, entertainers and other prominent people my age respond to questions about their youthful drug use. Fashioning their answer to the current climate they say that it was wrong -- or that they just experimented with it. But after my chuckle has died down there is some truth to the fact that, as a generation we did experiment with drugs--but we moved on. We did--dare I say it?--become responsible--at least the great majority of us did. I mean, even Jerry Rubin died a stockbroker. Still, to be honest many of my generation got lost in the haze in the smoke from a joint or the hallucinations from LSD.

Maybe it is a generational thing--maybe it is the different perspective that comes with age. I am told that as most of us get older our eyes refocus so that we become more and more farsighted. But be that as it may, it is now my far-sighted perspective that there is a clear distinction between the youth of my generation and that of my son and those slightly older. I can't think of a better example of the difference between the two generations than in the vision I have of a flower child in San Francisco--this is, after all, the 30th anniversary of the "Summer of Love"; a flower child with a brightly colored tie-dyed shirt smiling. Compare that with a current image of someone with a glassy-eyed, hollowed out look dressed in black.

But I've digressed a bit. Still, I understand--and I agree--that what has been characterized as "heroin chic" is symptomatic about the moral and spiritual state of our society. But when I hear Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition or his mentor Pat Robertson--or politicians like Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennet and all those other nattering nabobs of moralism speak about "family values" it makes me uneasy--real uneasy.

For what they seek to do is to impose a set of values on the willing and unwilling alike. I rankle at the thought of someone telling me I must believe this or I must behave in a certain way. It may be that I will come to those conclusions but that is because of my own experience--and not solely based on someone else's directive. This is why I react the way I do when I hear the term "family values."

There is another reason for my dislike of the term. Not only does it imply an external imposition; it is also passive--a family value is like a nice piece of furniture in the living room. Everyone admires it and finds it comfortable as it just sits there.

If we are talking about family values I prefer the more active "valuing families." And that's where this week's two events come in. On Tuesday, the Scituate Clergy Association got together for an emergency meeting. Well, emergency may be too strong a word. Let's say it was a meeting other than our usual monthly meeting. Ray Low, rector at St. Luke's, had called the meeting to discuss a letter he received from the head of the Scituate Firefighter's Union responding to an earlier letter sent by Ray Low concerning the Mother's Day race in North Scituate.

Let me give you some background. At our April meeting the Scituate clergy got into a discussion about Sunday morning--a time of utmost importance to us all. We all lamented the demise of the "Sunday morning goin' to meetin'" ethic. And I include in that phrase people who observe the Sabbath on Saturday. We commiserated with each other about how contemporary life has placed people in a bind on the Sabbath. With the repeal of the blue laws many people are forced to choose between their place of worship or their place of employment--and given that their job depends on reporting to work when told to, the choice is clear. And families are also confronted with the choice between soccer, hockey, or scouting outings and worship time. As clergy, we realized that this is a tidal wave that just can't be turned back. But being spiritual leaders who, by their very nature, are the patron saints of lost causes, we decided to make our feelings known.

It just so happened that the Mother's Day race in North Scituate was coming up and this highlighted the issue for us. The race, which was for a good cause --to help Wayne Ross who was paralyzed in an accident while raising money to help others--was to begin at 10:00 am on Mother's Day, a Sunday, a time when all the churches in Scituate would be holding services. Such scheduling puts parents in a bind and asks them to choose between a charitable road race and church, two undeniable good activities. But unless the whole family runs or walks--at the same pace--it isn't really a family activity. But the problem just isn't with the road races.

Father Matt Bradley, who leads the Foyer of Charity on Hollet Street also prepares the children of St. Francis Cabrini for their first communion told us the story of a parent who kept delaying his son's participation in the class because his son's hockey team continued to advance in the tournament.

To put the exclamation point on this train of thought...As I was writing these very words I got a call from Lauri Klein telling me that she and her family wanted to be here at church, particularly to be formally welcomed as a new members, but there was a conflict. It seems that the Wampatuck School is having its "WingDing" as we speak.

With all this talk about family values why do charitable organizations, schools, scouting, and businesses schedule events during hours of worship? I believe it is due, in part, to the harried life we lead as parents of young children.

Recent issues of Newsweek and Fortune magazines have come out with articles about parents balancing family and work. Newsweek's cover story had the title, "The Myth of Quality Time: How we're cheating our kids, What you can do." The article refers to a study which observed that many people who were trying to balance home and the office weren't doing a very good job of it. In fact the study's conclusion was that for many workers home and office have changed places. "Home," the article said, "is a frantic exercise in beat-the-clock, while work, by comparison, seems a haven of grown-up sociability, competence and relative freedom." And for those of us who are parents of children from 6 to 16, who can argue? Running from dance lesson, to soccer practice, to piano lesson, to music recital at the school, parents are exhausted--and so are the children. But the thought that the workplace is more relaxing than the home has my head shaking.

The article in Fortune magazine, titled, "Is Your Family Wrecking Your Career?" talks about the complete turnaround of how large corporations--Fortune 500 companies--view the family. In the good old 1950's the ideal corporate man--and in those days it almost exclusively was a man--was seen as one who had a family. That represented security and responsibility. But according to the article "families are no longer a big plus for a corporation; they are a big problem....More and more the business world seems to regard children not as the future generation of workers--a worthy investment--but as luxuries you're entitled to after you've won your stripes. It's fine to have the kids' pictures on your desk, "the article's author, Betsy Morris writes, "Just don't let them cut into your billable hours." The corporate hero--or heroine--today is one who can fly to Asia at a moment's notice.

A recent report by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development found that young children today spend significantly less time in the company of adults than a few decades ago. About one third of all adolescents have contemplated suicide; half are at moderate to high risk of abusing drugs, failing in school, getting pregnant, or otherwise seriously damaging their lives. While the risks are exacerbated by poverty [the report says], "in survey after survey, young people from all ethnic and economic backgrounds lament their lack of parental attention and guidance."

This, in my opinion, is where the debate on family values should focus. It is more about the time we spend with our children than what TV shows they see or what music they play. For if the time issue is dealt with, the other issues will be as well.

And this is why clergy, not only in Scituate, but around the country are in a constant struggle to protect that hour of worship. That time is not meant for recreation--it is meant for re-creation. With those of us balancing careers and children -- and doing so at a frantic level-- it is obvious that there is little or no sanctuary in our lives. Families use every waking hour of the weekend to squeeze in what they have no time for during the week.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is not the clarion call of those who equate "family values" to mean that mom--and only mom--should stay at home and raise the children. The question I'm putting forth here is maybe its time to give up one of the many activities our children are involved with and take them to the museum, to Fenway, to the Arboretum, or just stay home. Its time we gave ourselves and our children a place where time can stand still. And this is the problem I and my clergy colleagues have with events that conflict with worship or religious education time.

Again, don't get me wrong. This, too, is not a clarion call for mandatory attendance in church on Sunday. But this is a call for "valuing families." A road race however noble its purpose does not, in my view, value families since in all likelihood its mom and/or dad thats in the race. A scouting outing, while useful in learning teamwork and responsibility does not value family time. Am I asking parents-am I asking myself--to choose between church and racing or church and scouting? Am I asking parents to choose between a Sunday trip with the kids to visit their grandparents and coming to church? Of course not. What I am asking all of us to think about is the amount of time we spend together as a family. And that goes for grandparents as well. What I'm asking, is similar to what the Scituate clergy will be doing as a group: asking schools, scouting, the Chamber of Commerce, the recreation department, the firefighter's union to hold off events on Sunday morning till at least noon. We, as clergy, support school events, scouting projects, town-wide celebrations and charitable fund-raisers. All we are asking for is some reciprocal consideration.

Now I know that for the most part I've been preaching to the choir--the wonderful growth in our church has been due to families. So, I hope you see this--in part--as the venting of someone who is slowly but surely getting deeper into his 50s and becoming a curmudgeon. Still, I offer these comments as an observation upon our society at large.

Now, that's the bad angel on my shoulder whispering in my ear telling me what I should be angry about. The good angel reminds me about the good things that I saw happening on Thursday and what I should be pleased about.

As you know I have been quite active in the development of the Tuckerman Coalition, an effort on the part of Unitarian Universalist clergy and lay-people to raise up a liberal religious voice in the area of public policy. This week we had our public debut. A three member panel consisting of the Rev. Betty Ellis-Hagler, director of the Urban Ministry, Millie Seaborn, a member of First Parish Bedford and the Rev. John Gibbons, minister of First Parish in Bedford testified in support of the Newborn Homevisiting Bill. The legislation would provide home visits to every Massachusetts infant born to mothers and/or fathers under the age of 19. Children who have children would be taught parenting skills about cuddling and reading. They would be given information about nutrition and other things essential to giving an infant--and parents--a good start in building a healthy family.

Two things made a great impression on me at that hearing. The first related to the homevisiting legislation itself.What impressed me was the broad range of support this legislation has. Appearing in front of a joint House and Senate Human Services Committee were Attorney General Harshbarger, pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton, the former CEO of New England Telephone, the head of the Boston AFL-CIO council, Mayor Menino and the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. After these well-know people spoke, the public was given the opportunity to speak. In addition to our panel, we heard two young mothers, 16 and 17, speak about how helpful an early intervention program was for them.

This legislation is modeled after a program in Hawaii which reports have shown has reduced the incidence of child abuse and neglect from 19 percent to 4 percent among families visited. AG Harshbarger put the value of such a program in very real terms by testifying that 78 percent of the nation's prisoners and 90 percent of domestic batterers were abused as children. It was clear to me that the committee saw this program as good public policy. It was legislation that values families.

But I also came away from that hearing with an unexpected impression. I had mistakenly thought that the hearing was just on the Newborn Homevisiting Bill, but there were several other pieces of legislation being discussed. People talked in favor of raising money through selling state bonds to provide affordable child care. The Police Chief of Wellsley, whose infant son died in his arms of SIDS and a doctor whose son choked to death when he slipped in a high chair spoke movingly in favor of a child death reporting system. Apparently Massachusetts is one of the very few states that does not have a centralized system of recording the cause of children's deaths. The purpose of the proposed legislation would be to track the causes of death, and if it is due to a product, such as a five gallon bucket that a child drowned in Dorchester--efforts could be made to redesign or ban the sale of such products. And there was also legislation to lower the caseload for social workers in the Department of Social Services so that they can better monitor children in foster homes.

My general impression of the hearing was that it was a celebration of democracy--people's petitioning their government--and a celebration of valuing children and families.

This being a house of worship we often are concerned with things spiritual. Sometimes we see the spiritual in our lives more clearly than at other times.

How often do we marvel at how a mother bear takes care of its cub--or a gander looking after a gosling--or a lion teaching a cub how to hunt? How often do we marvel at the attention a bird gives to its young when it teaches them to fly? And yet how often do we make the connection that this is what we also do, in our human way, with our children?

My high school biology teacher, Mrs. Schwerner and I would often get into an active debates. One issue I remember clearly. She did not believe that human beings, as opposed to other animal life- had innate traits--instincts. She believed that all our behavior is learned from the moment of birth. I, on the other hand, believed then and still do, that there are some instinctive human habits. They are not learned but are inbred in us. What is a parent's nurturing of a child? It is innate. It is in our being. It is instinctive. And what can be more spiritual than knowing that?

Ken Patton says that "our essential wealth and magnitude is in people, and if we deplete our persons by insufficient nurture, all the possessions in the world will not diminish the poverty within ourselves."

Children and families need the nurturing of time and love. Such nurturing shows how we value families and there is no greater family value than that.

AMEN