To the editor:
The recent letter in the Lincoln Squirrel from Mr. Pease—a proponent of the current design for the First Parish building project who has been part of the team advancing the application though the permitting process—is deeply disconcerting, and it raises questions regarding what values and commitment to the community are reflected by such a letter.
The letter takes issue with previous letter writers and the Flints for raising objections to the First Parish building project, makes assertions about requirements for handicapped accessibility that strain credulity, misstates facts about the progress of the project through the permitting process, and ignores the fact that many have been taken by surprise with the actual design, given the promises made to the congregation in 2008—promises not kept. And why should the breach of faith with the Flint family matter to the town?
It was the Flint family who, in the 1600s, first settled in what we now know as Lincoln. It was the Flint family that gave land to create the first meeting house and church that allowed us to be recognized as a town in 1754. It was the Flints who led the way in land stewardship, placing the bulk of their very valuable fields in our historic center in permanent conservation, forgoing the large profits that could have been made by the sale of this valuable real estate. And it was a gift from the Flints that allowed a walkway between the First Parish’s two properties and enabled the church to construct the proposed addition. That gift was made assuming the representations presented to them in 2001 had meaning, and that what would be built and what would reflect those representations would be preserved as a result of their gift.
It has been the Flints who have served the town on boards and committees for generations. The Flints have been major contributors of time, resources and talent to the entire community, not just the First Parish community, for 11 generations. It might be said that they are, literally, the first family of Lincoln. They came before any of us, and, I hazard to guess, will remain long after we are gone. They have been the family that has kept core values of caring for community (the entire community) and land in the fore. They have led by example and we all have been the beneficiaries.
It should be noted that all that the Flints have called for (recently reiterated by Ephraim Flint in the Lincoln Squirrel) in fact was promised in the 2008 report from the Building Committee in “The Parish News” (Vol. 45 #8, Sept. 24, 2008). The Flints and many others expected church leadership to honor these promises and assurances. When they were not, the Flints and others raised objections that continue today.
We as a larger community have a right to celebrate and a responsibility to preserve and protect the “sacred space” that is our historic center. It was created to serve all, not just a few. Generations of Flints have fully understood this and today, as in the past, remind us of the need to think of stewardship for the whole. None should be subjected to ridicule and mockery when we question and openly and respectfully express disagreement with each other about the meaning of stewardship for the whole. Does such intolerance for civil debate best reflect the values of a church or our community?
The 200+ year-old tree that will be felled to make room for the proposed addition cannot be restored. But more important are the human relationships that have been damaged in this process. Let us hope that the new church leadership can find ways to restore the relationships and mutual respect within the church community, between the town and the church, and certainly with those who were so instrumental in giving birth and nurturing our wonderful town—the Flints.
Sincerely,
Sara Mattes
71 Conant Rd.
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.