First Parish Unitarian UniversalistWhy the Pineapples?
A sermon preached by the Reverend Diane D. Teichert
First Parish Unitarian Universalist - Canton, MA
March 4, 2007
“Why all the pineapples at First Parish?” I’m often asked that question by people in the Introduction to Unitarian Universalism class.
I remember wondering about it myself, when I was new to First Parish. I remember a pineapple banner hanging in the Chapel back then, where now we have a beautiful “flaming chalice” done in stained glass by our own Diana King, a gift from Queenie Holmberg.
Why the pineapples?
When I was new to First Parish, I was under the impression that the pineapple was the symbol for the Junior League, which to my mind was an organization of well-to-do ladies wearing white gloves who raised money for the disadvantaged…. I thought it rather odd that they would be holding their meetings at First Parish at the end of the 20 th century, and even odder that you would not require them to remove their banner between meetings!
But, it turns out, the pineapple belongs to us, as well as being—or because of being—a symbol of hospitality, harking back to the 19 th century. As the story is told, when New England ship captains returned home from sea after voyages to the Caribbean, they placed a pineapple on their front steps or impaled one on an iron fence or porch railing as a sign that they were home again, “so, please, come by and visit a while.” This is how the pineapple became a symbol of hospitality.
Exactly how it was decided to be our symbol, here at First Parish, is as yet unclear to me. But, high above the front sanctuary doors of our 1825 “meeting house,” as it was called at the time, there is a large, wood-carved pineapple, symbol of hospitality. If you’ve never noticed it, stand at the edge of the lawn opposite the front steps and look up, high above the door. There you will see it!
Looking for references to this pineapple, I combed the authoritative History of the Town of Canton, written in 1899 by Daniel T.V. Huntoon, the son of the fifth and seventh minister of this congregation.
(Now that’s an interesting story, how could the Reverend Benjamin Huntoon be both the fifth and the seventh minister?
Well, his son reports, it’s because he was called to serve as pastor here in 1821, but resigned in 1829 to be the first minister of the new Unitarian church in Bangor, Maine, where he also thought his children could get a better education. But ten years later, after the death of his wife “far away in a land of strangers,” he was invited to return to Canton, and was installed again as the minister here in March 1841. He served for another eight years.
During Benjamin Huntoon’s first tenure here, this building—the fourth meeting house and the first on this spot—was erected and, I assume, the pineapple was affixed to the front of it at, or about, the same time, and also, he was the pastor here when the congregation voted to become Unitarian..
Oddly, the book’s only mention of the pineapple is in the chapter on the building of the previous, the third, meeting-house in Canton, which had no pineapple, as you will soon hear. But, first I have to tell you that I got a good chuckle from the description of the decision to replace the second meeting-house, which stood not far from here in the cemetery near where the flagpole is today. The first mention in parish records of wanting to replace the second meeting-house, whether on account of its size or its condition is not known, was in November 1739, but the matter was tabled. Then, for the next six years, as Daniel Huntoon writes, it was “often discussed…and, as often, voted down.” Until October 1745, when a “vote was obtained in favor of building a new meeting-house.” (p. 264).
So, it was under discussion for nearly six years—and how long have we been discussing the sale of the current parsonage??? Well more than six years, my friends! Perhaps at today’s meeting, we’ll obtain that vote!
But, if that vote is obtained, I hope it doesn’t take us as long to sell our third parsonage as it took our forbears to build our third meeting-house. They began using it for worship in October 1847 even though it was not completed. In 1750, the parish voted to “do something toward finishing it” and yet, as Huntoon wrote, “in 1752 it was not done.” (p. 265). Seven years after the vote to build it.
But, let me get back to the pineapple. This is what Daniel Huntoon says about their new, third meeting-house, and I quote:
[It] did not differ materially from the other meeting-houses of its day. Its exterior was pierced with a double row of windows [the drawing of it shows two rows of clear, square windows]. The snows of winter and the rains of summer gave it a color which, innocent of paint until 1790, was not peculiar to itself, but uniform with most if not all of the houses in town…[Its] appearance on the outside was very plain; no ornamentation was visible. It had not the golden pineapple, with its green leaves, to delight the children of that generation, which was once so conspicuous on the present church [he means this one, that we’re in now], and which, long years ago, we gazed at with infantile delight, although of late years this golden pineapple has been painted like the rest of the [meeting] house.” (p. 266).
Right now that pineapple symbol of hospitality is painted a dark, burnished gold, and its leaves are black. I think it would be fun to re-paint it a conspicuous bright gold, with green leaves, don’t you?
That pineapple outside is not our only pineapple, as you may have observed. Inside the sanctuary, see, the ends of our pews are decorated with small pineapples. There’s a story there, too.
It didn’t used to be that every pew-end had a pineapple on it. Back in the nineteenth century, only certain pews in the rear of the sanctuary were marked with small carved-wood pineapples, to show that these were “free” pews, available for visitors and the indigent, again a sign of welcome and hospitality.
The vast majority of the pews, however, were “owned” by local families, by pew number. One can see in the Pew Deed Book that families “bought” and “sold” pews often, when they arrived or left the town, and as their property increased, thus justifying a “better” pew, or decreased if their prosperity diminished. When the third meeting-house was first erected, it was decided that the pews would be sold as follows: the two men highest on the real-estate valuation list were to have their choice of pew and pay the highest fees, and then the next two at slightly less, and so on until all the pews were taken and, hopefully, paid for. (p. 265).
Their system had some pros and some cons, didn’t it? Today, we would likely reject as elitist the idea that the richest among us would get the best seats in our house of worship. (And, besides, we don’t all agree on what’s the best seat, do we?). That’s the con. For the pro, at least our forebears had a way of taxing themselves according to their means!
These taxes were paid to the parish, which was both church and town at that time. It was not until 1819 in Canton and 1833 statewide that religious freedom was established, at the insistence of Universalist, Baptist and other churches that had come along after the Puritans who established the churches called First Congregational Societies, as this was here before its members voted to become Unitarian. Everyone else resented paying their taxes to support a church to which they did not belong. Thus, this pew tax practice ended and voluntary contributions began.
Nowadays, we declare our intent to financially support First Parish in an annual pledge drive, which we will be kicking off this week. Unlike the evangelical churches, parish leaders don’t ask us (and themselves) to give a Biblical tithe, which would be 10% of our incomes, though a few of us do so without being asked. Rather, we set a goal of a quarter-tithe, or 2.5% of our incomes, understanding that some can give more while others must give less. No more pew tax!
A few years ago, former Buildings & Grounds committee chair Ruth Johnstone made a plaster mold of one of the pew-end pineapples. She then made enough replicas to mount a pineapple on every pew end. I love how that shows our welcome to all and invites everybody to sit wherever they choose.
It’s a radical statement, saying that everyone is welcome, and it echoes inside what is symbolized outside by the rainbow flag which has flown there since June 2004, the year that we voted to become a Welcoming Congregation.
(Later that year, Ruth used this same mold to make extra replicas, the sale of which has raised several hundred dollars for First Parish since. There are still a few left, so I put them out in the Parish Hall again today, $4 each).
I tell you all of this to highlight how important hospitality is to us at First Parish, not to sell more pineapple ornaments! Hospitality is ourhistory—I know of no other house of worship with a pineapple above its entrance, do you? And, it is also our future!
Hospitality is about how we welcome the stranger into our midst. Hospitality is about how First Parish becomes the spiritual home, the religious community of those who choose to return after their first visit. Without hospitality, far fewer of those who do return will keep coming and eventually sign the Membership Book and get involved, as did those seven new members we warmly welcomed into our fellowship today.
Hospitality, of course, isn’t all we offer here. But, without it, whatever else is good and true about who we are and what we do here … will die here with us, as the walls crumble and the windows fall in, due to neglect. Being hospitable expresses our joy in being together. It beckons others to come in and share in that joy.
Our commitment to hospitality is a product, I believe, of our Unitarian Universalist principles, such as our affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and our understanding that we are each intimately connected with all people and every living thing and the earth.
And, those contemporary principles are a product of what the great historian of Unitarianism, Earle Morse Wilbur, saw in Unitarianism since the days of the early Christian church, even when it did not have a name but had adherents, many of whom were persecuted for their beliefs.
His study of Unitarianism, for which he learned seven languages, showed the three leading principles of Unitarianism since its earliest days to be: “first, complete mental freedom in religion rather than bondage to creeds or confessions; second the unrestricted use of reason in religion rather than reliance upon external authority or past tradition, and third, generous tolerance of differing religious views and usages rather than insistence upon uniformity in doctrine, worship or polity. Freedom, reason and tolerance: it is these conditions above all others that this movement has from the beginning increasingly sought to promote…” (A History of Unitarianism, Volume II:
A History of Unitarianism Socinianism and its Antecedents, by Earl Morse Wilbur, D.D., 1945, pp. 13-14).
Our radical welcome, our heretic hospitality is an expression, or perhaps an extension, of these commitments. Yes, we could draw the circle wider to draw in more of the diversity that is present in Canton and the surrounding towns—more of the potential Republican UU’s, the potential African-American, Asian or Latino UU’s; the potential Muslim-Americans who seek a liberal interpretation of holy scriptures, their own and others’.
What self-education must we engage in to be ready to truly welcome these newcomers, as the workshops and forums we held in the early years of this decade prepared us to welcome potential gay UU’s? What changes ought we to make, as we did then? When we’ve readied ourselves, what new symbols might we adopt to welcome even more of our neighbors?
That kind of self-education goes way back in First Parish history, at least as far back as 1867. When I was looking in the historic record for mention of the pineapple on the exterior of this building, I found a book of handwritten notes by Robert Draper, a leader of the parish, concerning the beginning of a Lyceum by men of Ponkapoag and Canton Corner, in 1867. The Lyceum was a discussion or debating society that met every two weeks. They picked timely controversial topics, chose one or two of their members to argue each side of the topic, and then discussed the merits of the arguments.
Their first topic was “Which best promotes the cause of Temperance, the Prohibition or the License laws?” In the end, he reports, they decide unanimously for Prohibition.
The second topic was “What do the times most demand. Radical or Conservative men?” Mr. Draper argued for the Radical, and included his entire argument in his notes. His case was made on the argument that the Radical view, “liberty for the Negro on condition of loyalty,” was just a matter of common sense, which if more people had seen, “how short might have ben the contest” and the bloodbath of the war between the states avoided.
Their next topic was the suffrage of women and his arguments in favor, I though, were most compelling… But that’s for another time. I have digressed here just to note that our forebears were willing to take on the controversial issues of their day.
We here at First Parish have so much to offer:
Freedom, reason and tolerance…
a sense of community, where we lighten each other’s burdens of sorrow and multiply our joys by sharing them…
a depth of spirit, each of us on an individual journey toward wholeness even as we come together to worship in this place of history and of hope, which we make holy by our love.
We have so much to offer. And a pineapple on every pew!