Friday, May 23, 2014

What Makes Us Us?

I have several parishioners who are losing their minds.  I know that may not be the politically correct way to put it, but I can’t think of a more apt description.  They are mentally not who they were when I met them.  They’re forgetful or confused or angry or lost.  They are all in their eighties, although I know plenty of people that age or older who are fine.  I am troubled by the changes or even loss of personality in these people who have become so dear to me over the almost 11 years that I have known them.
There is one woman who is so afraid of what her memory loss means that she has pushed everyone in her family away.  She needs to be in control of everything – to the point that she wouldn't let them take her out to lunch on Mother’s Day but insisted that she follow her routine and have a sandwich at the kitchen table while they weren't allowed to vacuum or do anything that might make her home cleaner or more livable. 
There is another woman who is always delighted to have me visit, but is unable to carry on a conversation beyond expressing her delight that I am there.  We've had numerous fascinating talks over the years about the development of the local area in her lifetime and I had hoped to someday film or record her telling them, but she is no longer able to string coherent thoughts together, much less share them in any meaningful way.
Then there’s the sweetest gentleman who is also happy to see me, but wonders what method of transportation I took to get to him – train, bus, or plane – as he’s convinced he’s in his summer cabin three states away.
There are others in my congregation who are also struggling with memory issues; these are just three examples of people who once were vibrant and productive in the church, in their workplaces, in their family lives, who now are bare shadows of who they once were.  It really makes me wonder what it is that makes us who we are, what makes us us?  
We have lots of conversations in the church about the soul: who has one, who owns it, what happens to it when we die.  But I am wondering what happens to it while we’re alive.  If we are no longer able to remember who we are, are we ourselves?
This question has been raised in several ways, one of the most compelling of which was in the short-lived television show “Dollhouse.”  The crux of the philosophical debate in that fictional context was in the technological ability to strip an individual’s personality and save it to a hard drive, then download other personalities into the brain pan for corporate gain.  People in the show who've been “wiped” do have a vestigial personality, but it is simple and malleable.  One of the taglines for the show was “you can wipe away a memory, but can you wipe away a soul?”


Boyd (Harry Lennix) is Echo's (Eliza Dushku) handler, while
Topher (Fran Kranz) is the brilliant mind who makes stripping
hers possible. (Photo credit: IMDb)

What exactly is the soul?  If it is the essence of what makes us who we are, is what we remember important?  I first pondered this about 10 years ago as I watched the documentary “Complaints of a Dutiful Daughter.”  That Oscar-nominated film by Deborah Hoffman shows her struggle with the loss of relationship with her mother, Doris.  Not because she and her mother have had a falling out, but because Alzheimer’s takes Doris’s memory away.  She no longer recognizes Deborah, and even though Doris is mostly happy in her minimized condition, Deborah is – understandably – not.
I have no answer for these questions, only sadness.  As I watch person after person that I know become something not less but definitely other than what he or she has been to me, I wonder whether a long life without the connections that make that life meaningful is worth living.  Do I wish to exist beyond my ability to remember those I love and the experiences that have given my life purpose and direction?  All I know is that I will continue to love these people as they are now, as well as how they have been, in hopes that it is enough.


Monday, May 12, 2014

Cloning and Musings on the Question of Creation

I love the television show "Orphan Black."  I think it's a great deal of fun.  I love watching Tatiana Maslany playing Sarah and Alison and Cosima and Helena and so on.  I really love watching Tatiana Maslany playing Sarah pretending to be Alison or Cosima - or that time when she played Helena pretending to be Sarah pretending to be Beth - or last week's episode where Sarah was fending off an attack by Daniel but then he's killed and the stark utter terror in her face when a knife-carrying bloody Helena (who is, remember, also played by Tatiana Maslany) comes in and hugs her - it's crazy fun.

Sarah (Tatiana Maslany) confers with her best friend and
foster brother Felix (Jordan Gavaris) who also happens
to be one of my favorite characters on the show
(photo courtesy of Entertainment Weekly)

I'm not quite so crazy about the role the church plays in the storyline though.  The twins Sarah and Helena were given away by the woman who carried them in her womb, one to the church and one to the state.  Both symbols of authority are presented pretty badly in the tale, but I think the church gets the worse end of the deal.  I don't know how this woman selected the religious organization to which she gave baby Helena, but she couldn't have chosen more poorly.  The "church" leaders who raise the baby clone into adulthood see her existence as a slight against God and abuse her beyond belief.

However, even in the midst of the loudly stated blasphemy of her very presence, it seems pretty clear to me that Helena is a human being.  A crazy one.  But who wouldn't be if s/he were kept in an animal cage, beaten, brainwashed, and told that s/he had no value.  It is no wonder that she is a self-hating and "sister"-murdering creature.

In light of that very obvious point, it is hard to understand the number of characters who loathe her simply on principle.  It is as though they cannot see what is literally in front of their eyes.  That is that a human clone would first be a human being.  Notwithstanding how the gestation process began, whether initiated by science or sex, I fail to see how a person is not created by God simply because the process by which he or she began life was different.

Clones have identical copies of DNA.  
(photo courtesy of Professor Alfred Cuschieri, 
"Fertilization and the First Week of Life")

I do understand that as people we change or mutate or evolve through the process of fertilization and that cloning does not use a sperm and an egg but rather is life recreated from a single donor.  I can even understand that cloning may be problematic for a wide variety of ethical reasons. But the argument that "only God can create life" is a specious one.  Yes, only God can create life.  However, is not God creating the life that begins in a petri dish, goes through the process of artificial insemination, and is then born of a mother who carried that child to term?  How would a clone by definition be any less inspirited by God than any other type of life?  However the miracle of life begins it is no less a miracle.