« From the Inbox 21 April 2006 | Main | Rod Dreher on Earth Day »
April 21, 2006
It Is Better to Bury than to Burn
I am surprised by how often Christians are stunned to hear me say that cremation is not a Christian act. Previous generations of Christians would have understood exactly, but today an anti-cremation stance seems at best Luddite and at worst carnal. People will ask, "Can't God raise a cremated Christian just as he can raise a decomposed buried Christian?"
I am surprised by how often Christians are stunned to hear me say that cremation is not a Christian act. Previous generations of Christians would have understood exactly, but today an anti-cremation stance seems at best Luddite and at worst carnal. People will ask, "Can't God raise a cremated Christian just as he can raise a decomposed buried Christian?"
Our eschatology has everything to do then with how we "dispose" of the "remains" of our dead loved ones. Since we believe in the resurrection of the body, we don't see a corpse as "garbage." From the time of our earliest ancestors in the faith, we have buried our dead, committing them to the earth from which they came with the conviction that they will one day be summoned from it once more. The image of sleep is useful--not because the dead are unconscious, but because they will one day be awakened (Luke 8:52-55).
God deems as faith Joseph committing his bones to his brothers for future transport into the land of promise (Heb 11:22). In the same way, the act of burial is a testimony of the entire community to the resurrection of the body. Cremation is a horrifying testimony of the burning up of the flesh and bones, a testimony that is decidedly pagan in both origin and in practice. Stephen Prothero's Purified by Fire traces how atheists and "freethinkers" in America pioneered the practice in America precisely because they denied the resurrection of the flesh.
Of course, God can resurrect a cremated Christian (or a Christian torn to pieces by lions, etc.), but how we deal with the body of a Christian teaches us--and the watching world--what we really believe about the gospel. People in our churches who are talked into cremation by funeral home directors, or by the wishes of the loved ones themselves, aren't evil. But pastors and church leaders should patiently teach that what we do at the graveside is part of our witness too.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 12:29 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d83428d3fa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It Is Better to Bury than to Burn :
» Christians and cremation from Discerning Discipleship
Sometimes I'm amazed at the way people think...
Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments: It Is Better to Bury than to Burn
Our eschatology has everything to do then with how we dispose of the remains of our dead loved ones. Since we be [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 22, 2006 4:25:51 PM
» Moore on Cremation from Fountain of Sovereign Grace
[Read More]
Tracked on Apr 23, 2006 1:37:50 PM
Comments
I thought that the Catholic Church allows cremation? It just doesn't allow the scattering of the ashes.
???
Posted by: Trubador | Apr 21, 2006 12:46:20 PM
Is there then no hope for those who were cremated? My beloved grandmother was cremated and it kills me to think that I won't see her again in the world to come. She didn't know any better, and asked to be cremated because she couldn't bear the thought that our last memory of her would be of her as she was at the end, eaten up by multiple myeloma, not because she was an aheist; she wasn't she was a Christian.
Posted by: Luthien the nasty den mother | Apr 21, 2006 12:47:53 PM
I believe... the article made it abundantly clear that the cremated can be raised just as easily as the buried... did you read to the end?
Posted by: Terrel | Apr 21, 2006 1:07:58 PM
Luthien, I think the post makes clear there is indeed hope. Even if cremation is not necessarily "christian" doing such does not override our salvation by Christ. Thank God for that. Think of all the stupid things we do in life which would push us out if that were the case. God, I think, in many cases accepts even our misguided notions without holding them against us, even after the apparent end. He'll even go against his own policies. A man who dies being hung on a tree is cursed and has no hope for eternal rewards. Yet not only did Jesus rise from the grave, he invited the fellow being crucified next to him to join him in Paradise that very day.
Indeed, people can be burned alive for all sorts of other reasons, whether martyrdom at the stake, or in a particularly terrible car accident. God's resurrection and eternal assignments isn't limited by the manner of our turning to dust, whether by worm or by fire.
I think more to the point is that cremation reflects how we view a body, and how we view life ever after. It is more for us, if I read this rightly, that we do not cremate. A society that accepts cremation is a society with certain notions on things, and which seem according to Christian teaching to be notions that do not lead us towards a more thorough understanding of how God does work in all of time.
God is not limited by our method of body disposal, even if there are ways preferred and manners which better reflect how we are supposed to view even a dead body. So, I've little doubt that your Grandmother is saved, and even now knows the freedom and power and mercy and love of God significantly more than we presently can imagine.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 21, 2006 1:21:42 PM
What if it's cheaper to cremate? Isn't it right to be a wise steward of our funds?
Posted by: Max | Apr 21, 2006 1:33:07 PM
Er, what about filling the dead body with all kinds of foul embalming chemicals? I can't see that that's more hopeful than cremating.
Posted by: Misty | Apr 21, 2006 1:40:36 PM
Is it legal to bury a body without embalming? I agree with Misty that it doesn't seem right to fill a body with chemicals. But you'd have to bury a body pretty quickly after death if you don't use any preservatives.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Apr 21, 2006 1:46:52 PM
If a burial plot, casket, and embalming didn't cost a small fortune, you'd have more of a case.
Posted by: Josh S | Apr 21, 2006 2:03:12 PM
I must respectfully disagree.
I think we should be careful to not 'add to the law'. There is no prohibition in scripture against cremation. Indications, perhaps, but I can prove to you through 'indications' that Christians shouldn't own dogs as pets.
I will be cremated because that's the only way my remains can fit in the tiny private graveyard in North Carolina where my ancestors lie. There is no more room for caskets: the stones go back to the mid-19th century and the plots are all full. The only way I could get my father in there was to have him cremated and then hand-bury his ashes on top of his sister's grave.
I grew up in a church that viewed most things in life as of pagan origin, including most other Christian churches. (Some info in post at my link.) What I learned from that experience was the value of 'mere Christianity', a Christianity that does not confuse our cultural prejudices with the will of God. For me to go back to that mindset would be to take up again the chains Jesus Christ in his pity and mercy removed from my soul.
Posted by: Baillie | Apr 21, 2006 2:21:43 PM
If I remember correctly (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that the church allows cremation so long as the individual being cremated (or whose loved ones who request the cremation) are not doing so with an intent of rejecting Church doctrine. In other words, so long as I'm not rejecting the Catholic faith and making a statement in doing so by having my remains cremated... or doing so because it's "such a cool pagan ritual and I want to have it done, too." As long as the respect is there, and that you are not rejecting your Catholic faith, then it is allowed.
Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
Posted by: Trubador | Apr 21, 2006 2:51:57 PM
How does organ donation figure in?
My father, not religious by any stretch, opposes organ donation because he sees it as a violation of the body. I wonder if he got that somehow through an absorbed version of this teaching.
Posted by: Gina | Apr 21, 2006 2:58:52 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean, Baillie. Next thing you know, Russell Moore is going to say that it is better for a Christian to go to church on Sunday than to stay home and watch football. Good thing we're not bound by those chains.
Posted by: Geoff | Apr 21, 2006 3:03:59 PM
Isn't this kinda majoring in the minors?
Posted by: Prester Scott | Apr 21, 2006 3:14:58 PM
I understand the arguments against cremation and personally believe it can send the wrong message about the ultimate future of the body after death, but I wonder how condemning cremation fits in with Sola Scriptura. Exactly where is cremation condemned explicitly or by implication in Scripture? Doesn't condemning it qualify as a tradition of man?
As to natural burial, there is a growing movement to return to burial without embalming. I have told my wife that I want to be buried without embalming in a simple wooden box which can rot with my natural body. If you are interested, I would recommend making the arrangements now and burial needs to be done rather quickly after death.
Our omnipotent Father does not need us to preserve the body for Him to resurrect on the Final Day. How we humans treat or mistreat the body of our dead can in no way limit His power and authority. We can rest assured, for instance, that the body of Polycarp will be among those resurrected despite his murderers' burning his remains to ashes.
Posted by: GL | Apr 21, 2006 3:30:59 PM
Cremation says absolutely nothing about how we view the Gospel. I've never once connected the two in my mind.
Joseph's act of faith was his belief that his ancestors would someday see the Promised Land. It had nothing to do with the condition of his body at the time of burial.
I really fail to see how putting a body in the ground to rot and decay treats it with less respect than cremation. And by your own admission, cremated bodies are resurrected.
Really.
Posted by: Ryan DeBarr | Apr 21, 2006 3:37:41 PM
Did I just inadvertently disagree with the Dean of Theology? :(
Posted by: Ryan DeBarr | Apr 21, 2006 3:39:08 PM
For your edification and amusement:
http://www.spirithistory.com/corpses.html
Posted by: Little Gidding | Apr 21, 2006 4:02:00 PM
For Russell Moore to oppose cremation on theological grounds is astounding. There's nothing in Scripture to prohibit a Christian from choosing cremation over burial.
Yes, for the record, I find cremation creepy, but, hey, there's something about freedom (I know that concept gets folks riled up around these parts) in the New Testament as well.
We all know why cremation was prohibited. It used to be a way to mock the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and thus the small-t tradition developed. That isn't the case today and there's no need to follow every small t-tradition blindly, espeically when the reason for the tradition has passed. Or else how would any tradition get started in the first place?
Posted by: sam | Apr 21, 2006 4:03:40 PM
For what it's worth,...
In Texas it is lawful to bury a corpse without embalming so long as the internment occurs within 24 hours of death. Indeed, it is not even necessary to place the remains in a casket, though a concrete grave liner is required by law, as it keeps grave plots from collapsing when the inevitable results of decay create voids beneath the surface.
Many years ago, I helped a widow navigate this path. She and her husband had pre-burial arrangements that specified no embalming and burial of remains within 24 hours. As she was out of town when her husband expired while planting a bed of flowers, there was no one to remind the funeral director. She found his remains embalmbed when she returned that evening. While she did not insist he undo the job, she did tartly refuse to pay him for the work. And, I will never forget the director's pique when he contacted me about burial without any casket at all.
Fr. B
Posted by: Fr. Bill | Apr 21, 2006 4:04:29 PM
But isn't burial instead of cremation something to be considered in terms of Christian witness, especially if it becomes more and more counter-cultural? If the epitaph I plan for my headstone - Deo adjuvante resurgam* - gets just one unbeliever thinking and asking questions, it would be worth it.
* By the grace of God, I shall rise again.
Posted by: Jenna | Apr 21, 2006 4:05:59 PM
"People in our churches who are talked into cremation by funeral home directors.."
Your data is different from what I found when I researched the Protestant chapter of "Death and Religion in a Changing World."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765612224/ref=sr_11_1/102-5100718-9315352?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Funeral directors that I interviewed and whose catalogues of products/services I examined, charged more for a traditional burial than for direct cremation or even cremation with a casket and memorial service. Cremation has unexpected costs associated with it, but what I researched showed that burial is more expensive.
Thus, I find the statement about funeral directors talking people into cremation a bit surprising.
Posted by: Glenn | Apr 21, 2006 4:09:07 PM
Glenn, your comments seem to support the idea rather than counter it. Did you mean to type something differently?
Posted by: Confused | Apr 21, 2006 4:37:02 PM
My husband and I used to be Episcopalians and were considering cremation because "everybody's doing it" without really thinking it through. Now we have become Orthodox and our church forbids it. The more we have thought about it, the more sense it makes. GL said that Polycarp will be resurrected and I believe that is true, but note: it was his murderers who burned his body. Also others have been obliterated in fiery plane crashes, for instance. This does not mean that God cannot resurrect them. In fact the church teaches that all will be resurrected to either glory or damnation. However, even though some bodies were burned (or completely destroyed in another fashion) does not mean that when given the choice, it is not a better example of our Christian beliefs to bury the body in a reverent manner.
BTW Glenn,
While it's true that cremation costs less, the profit margin may be more. In that case it would pay funeral directors to promote it.
To all my Orthodox brothers and sisters who celebrate this coming Sunday and all my western brothers and sisters who celebrated last Sunday: A most blessed Pascha/ Easter to you all. Hristos Voskrese, Christos Aneste, Christ IS Risen!
Posted by: Kathy Hanneman | Apr 21, 2006 5:55:54 PM
Donnelly: That is for the urn.
Walter: Don't need it. We're scattering the ashes.
Donnelly: Yes, so we were informed. However, we must of course transmit the remains to you in a receptacle.
Walter: This is a hundred and eighty dollars.
Donnelly: Yes sir. It is our most modestly priced receptacle.
The Dude: Well can we--
Walter: A hundred and eighty dollars?!
Donnelly: They range up to three thousand.
Walter: Yeah, but we're--
The Dude: Can we just rent it from you?
Donnelly: Sir, this is a mortuary, not a rental house.
Walter: We're scattering the f---ing ashes!
The Dude: Walter--
Walter: JUST BECAUSE WE'RE BEREAVED DOESN'T MAKE US SAPS!
Donnelly: Sir, please lower your voices.
The Dude: Man, don't you have, you know, something, uh, else we can put him in? You know?
Donnelly: It is our most modestly priced recepticle.
The Dude: GDIT! (pause) Is there a Ralph's around here?
(In the next scene Walter is carrying a Folger's Coffee can with Donny's ashes inside.)
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 21, 2006 6:05:56 PM
It's always amused me how my non-Christian humanist friends so enthusiastically embrace cremation, laughingly mocking the tradition of a Christian burial.
I appreciate this posting because far too many Christians have accepted cremation primarily for economic reasons.
Posted by: Jim Hale | Apr 21, 2006 6:17:33 PM
I really don't get this issue. I cannot see, think, feel one thing wrong about cremation. Many believing families I know have cremated family members. As someone mentioned, the Catholic Church allows it. As others mentioned, it's not a question of the resurrection. If Lazarus had been cremated and his ashes laid in the tomb, I have no doubt that Jesus could still have spoken, "Lazarus, come forth!", and he would have come. To value the body of our loved ones is one thing. To value what that body has become, in, let's say, one month in the ground is another.
Posted by: Janet | Apr 21, 2006 6:50:05 PM
Just one observation about the significance of the body as a body, that is, considered apart from the spirit who inhabits it, rendering it a living body ...
Jesus' resurrected body bears marks of the crucifixion on his hands and feet. These were, of course, "acquired" before he died and appear on his body after he is resurrected.
Not so the wound in the side. That mark was acquired by his body after his death. It is a post-mortem wound, delivered to a dead body. Yet, it appears in his resurrected body.
Make of this what you will (yes, perhaps nothing). One cannot generalize from this instance to the bodies of dead saints. But still, it would seem to attach a measure of importance to the body of the dead Jesus, and so tend to bolster the sensibilities Dr. Moore points to in his blog entry.
Fr. B
Posted by: Fr. Bill | Apr 21, 2006 7:19:37 PM
What predictable responses! Mr. Moore says he's surprised at how often Christians are stunned to learn that cremation is not a Christian act, proceeding to explain why it isn't. In response, a bunch of people respond that (paraphrasing) they're stunned to hear such a claim. Some of them explain their position by saying, for instance, "I cannot see, think, feel one thing wrong about cremation." What rigor! Q.E.D., Mr. Moore.
I don't know how to shock someone into recognition of their subtle heresy, or at least their behavior as if they believed a subtle heresy, but let me try by this response specifically to Prester Scott: The whole idea that criticizing a practice of some Christians is "majoring in minors" bespeaks disinterest in the fullness of the Christian faith. It's as if to say "don't confuse me with all the implications of the faith; just let me profess the 'essentials' (as I see them) and then live as I please."
Posted by: Reader John | Apr 21, 2006 9:40:00 PM
As someone above pointed out the traditional Orthodox view prohibits cremation, though I have read an essay or two by some western Orthodox who seem unduly influenced by the culture around them that would have us believe otherwise. As for organ donation, I have informed my wife of my beliefs thusly:
"if a single clipping from my fingernail will save a 1000 school children from some horrible and imminent death, you are NOT to donate it"
Exaggerated I know, but there is no room for doubt as to the true nature of my wishes here...
Posted by: Christopher | Apr 21, 2006 9:55:47 PM
Confused:
I was operating on the premise that a funeral director would likely try to talk a potential customer into a HIGHER priced package (burial) rather than into a lower priced package (cremation).
However, Kathy brings up an excellent point...it may be (and I don't know) that the profit margins are higher on the lower cost cremation, in which case it would make sense for funeral home directors to talk customers into cremation.
Still, the funeral home directors I talked to were very opposed to cremation and very big on the full bling bling casket, visitation and funeral/memorial service.
Posted by: Glenn | Apr 21, 2006 10:20:58 PM
Reader John,
I believe I answered with some rigor... a bit more rigor than a would have had I realized what blog I was on. :)
I personally want to be buried (not creamated) and buried in the same cemetery my forefathers have been buried in. I think that shows respect to tradition and family. But I don't think those who aren't buried in the traditional spot are disrespecting the family.
I respect Dr. Moore's view and it's beautiful in it's own way. I just think it's going to far to say that a person who's cremated has a lower, different, or deficient view of the Gospel or eschatology.
Posted by: Ryan DeBarr | Apr 21, 2006 10:24:38 PM
we're strictly cremation people here. No embalming, no viewing of the body , or any of that. and yeah, we scatter some of the ashes,
plant them with a tree, and even keep some and put them in a pretty container. I am quite sure that God doesn't give a fine fig which method people choose to take care of thier dead. That's my opinion, though.
boneyards ain't got much class anymore , they don't even let you have vertical headstones , not to mention cool statues and crypts.
now it's all about making it easy for the caretaker to mow the lawn!
Posted by: angel | Apr 21, 2006 10:30:46 PM
Perhaps we can at least agree that cremation is a low priority on the theological totem pole? If one doesn't intend to mock the resurrection, most of us seem to agree that cremating one's body isn't a mortal sin. A preference? Yes, but it sounds much like the arguments over whether baptism by immersion is the only acceptable form of baptism. The imagery of it is a strong recommendation for it, but doesn't make it mandatory, particularly if there are greater concerns at hand. Immersion baptism in the middle of a severe drought, for example, could be a sin because of the sterwardship issue.
Similarly, to cremation. The arguments over cost and stewardship are valid, and should perhaps be left to the discretion of individual Christians. All other things being equal, a regular burial should be preferred, I suppose. But I object particularly to Christopher's statement about organ donation. Perhaps I'm taking his exaggeration too far, or too personally. I donated a kidney recently, being convinced that this was the best use of the body and health God had given me. I can't imagine that maintaining the bodily integrity of the deceased is more important than giving up an organ that could improve the life of one still living.
Posted by: Yak n Yeti | Apr 21, 2006 11:14:16 PM
Here's from a radical Protestant of the 16th century, describing, in the House of Holiness, the sixth of seven men representing the Corporal Works of Mercy:
The sixth had charge of them now being dead
In seemly sort their corses to engrave,
And deck with dainty flowers their bridal bed,
That to their heavenly spouse both sweet and
brave
They might appear, when He their souls shall
save.
The wondrous workmanship of God's own mould,
Whose face he made, all beasts to fear, and gave
All in his hand, even dead we honor should....
Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene (1.10.42)
The body is a great mystery.... and, even in death, warrants its due honor. Nor is honor entirely in the mind of the bereaved. I think that at the very least, Christians should be suspicious of a practice that our earliest comrades in the faith rejected.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Apr 21, 2006 11:20:31 PM
I left a very vehement comment above in defense of cremation, and I apologize to Dr. Moore, and to others that feel as strongly. I was given pause (as I always am) by Dr. Esolen's comments, whose thinking and writing I hold in very high regard! I also realize I was speaking defensively, as my dear mother had my father cremated, partly bec. it was his wish, and partly bec. she could not have comfortably done more, being unsure of her resources.
I am Catholic and know that although my church permits it, it is not preferred. If I were Orthodox, I would respect that church's teachings.
To minimize the conflict was wrong.
Posted by: Janet | Apr 22, 2006 6:18:34 AM
Reader John,
Had you or another Orthodox Christian made the post, I would have no problem. You recognize Holy Tradition. Protestants, such as Dr. Moore, however, recognize only Scripture as authority. Protestants reject many other Traditions and traditions which are part of the Orthodox and Catholic teachings. They require, instead, that a teaching be explicitly stated in Scripture or implicit therefrom (hence proof texting). In my view, we reject Orthodox and Catholic teaching that are fairly implicit (and in some cases, arguably explicit) in Scripture. I don't see where cremation is either, so I am would like a Scripture-based defense of the case against cremation. I'm still waiting.
Posted by: GL | Apr 22, 2006 7:19:43 AM
Jonathan, I've got you beat for absurdity. My father (Jewish atheist communist) was cremated. My sister wanted his ashes and so did his wife, our stepmother. They actually divided the ashes and my sister brought a cardboard shoebox with half his ashes to her home in Vermont and put it on a shelf in the mudroom, where it stayed for several years. Later she acquired the ashes of our uncle and our mother and they sat on the shelf in boxes for a while. Finally we made a little burial area on her land, buried all the ashes in separate holes, and planted things around it. I wonder, if my father were to be resurrected (fat chance!), would he have a line down his middle?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Apr 22, 2006 7:28:53 AM
Reader John,
Evidently my comment was too pithy to be useful, so I'll elaborate. I appreciate Dr. Moore's argument; I grant that it is historically sound and consistent with good theology. However, to go from there to "cremation is not a Christian act" -- he falls just short of saying "cremation is a sin," but he may as well say it, for he seems to believe it -- is too strong.
Tell me, which of the commandments of Our Lord does cremation violate? I speak of the physical act, not the motives one may have for doing it. I concur that for the "pioneers" who did it with the intention of insulting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, it was indeed an act of blasphemy. If Orthodox discipline forbids it, then for an Orthodox to do it is an act of canonical disobedience. But this is not the case with Christians today who are under no obligations, discern nothing on it in Scripture, and therefore make a decision based on good stewardship. To accuse such people of being morally equivalent to the aforementioned self-conscious atheists is monstrous. Someone once said that man judges external appearances, but God judges the heart, and also, that we ought not elevate our own traditions to the level of divine law. Someone else once said that believers should not accuse one another of sin for keeping or not keeping devotional practices such as, for instance, abstaining from meat. Since we all agree that there is no reason why the physical act of cremation is bad (God can raise a man up from ashes, etc.), it appears to fall into the same category.
Therefore, let Dr. Moore and you and whoever else state your arguments for burial and against cremation. Say that you keep the tradition for good reasons and you think we ought to do likewise. But do not presume yourselves authorized to declare your tradition to be mandatory, and those who do not keep it, ungodly. Setting yourself up as a prophet, speaking new words from the Lord's mouth, is perilous in the extreme.
Posted by: Prester Scott | Apr 22, 2006 8:35:14 AM
The Orthodox Church's proscription of cremation was, believe it or not, one of the larger difficulties I faced in becoming Orthodox. When I read that it was considered to be disrespectful of the body I thought "Being pumped full of chemicals and dressed up like a tailor's dummy is respectful?"
I have to admit that the thought of thousands of dollars being spent to embalm my corpse and purchase a pricey coffin is galling to me (what can I say, I can stop being a Protestant, but I can't stop being a Scot). It really does strike me that the poor stewardship of resources involved in theat course of action strikes me as a far worse sin than anything involved in cremation (excepting, of course, using it to publically flaunt one's disbelief in the Resurrection. Still, I'm in the Church now, and I will defer to the Church's judgement.
Posted by: Mark AC | Apr 22, 2006 9:06:58 AM
>Protestants, such as Dr. Moore, however, recognize only Scripture as authority.
Incorrect. Protestants recognize Scripture as the first authority. At least ones with meaningful ties to the Reformation.
Posted by: David Gray | Apr 22, 2006 12:42:41 PM
This comment thread illustrates how much has been lost, how much orientation twisted, with the fracturing of the Tradition. Of course it will appear ungainly to try to recapture it piecemeal in this fashion.
I too am moved by Professor Esolen's comment, and as a new E. Orthodox aspirant-to-be-Christian would like to see all our spiritual kindred stop and think in the vein of Christopher's adamancy against "donation," not least because ripeness issues are likely to interfere with our passage of death. We may once again have been willing to swallow whole and undigested the truisms that the materialist culture spits out like clockwork oranges.
As another convert said about yesterday's Good Friday services, do we even know what we have lost over the centuries?
Posted by: dilys | Apr 22, 2006 3:05:30 PM
I too have struggled with the issue of cremation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation). I definitely think that we should take every thought captive and view it in the light of the scriptures and the wisdom of Christians and others who have gone before us. I don't think this is an unworthy topic for discussion. If we are going to discuss things like whether we should go see The Da Vinci Code, read Harry Potter books, watch violent television, or be at war in Iraq, I think we should definitely consider what statement we will be making with the final act of our life. I believe in being a good steward of what God has given us, including our money, our minds, and our body.
At the age of 9 my brother died. I believe he and my mother decided that he was to be cremated. His ashes were then spread over a lake that was a very large part of our life as a family. When my mother and father died some of their ashes were also spread over this lake. I had always accepted cremation as a better plan because of the influence of my parents and for some of the common reasons: cost, space, chemicals, decay. I honestly didn't have religious reasons for or against it.
Later I moved in with a friend who was a mortician. He had performed traditional burials and cremations. When I told him I wanted to be cremated he thought I was very wrong. He believed that we should follow Christ's example and be buried (actually, Christ was entombed, but we won't get into that). He also explained that cremation was a violent process, claiming that many bodies flail because of fluids and gases caught inside. It wasn't until later, after this man died, that I realized that cremation leaves large bone fragments that have to be crushed into smaller sizes (http://www.deathonline.net/disposal/cremation/process.cfm). Those acts, in and of themselves, seem very odd.
Since my wife and I have recently looked into becoming Eastern Orthodox we have been forced to take another look at this issue. As we have already heard, the Orthodox do not consider cremation a very good option (http://www.antiochian.org/wordhtml/200305_21.html). This seems consistent when you consider their encompassing view of salvation and incarnation. But what about embalming? According to what I have read, the Orthodox do not think modern embalming is a good idea either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming). My wife brought up a good point. The concern of the Orthodox for cremation can't be the disbelief in the ability of God to bring together the remains of those who have been scattered because many saints relics are split up and moved to various churches and holy places.
To sum it up, I think a lot of people who are considering cremation are doing it for the following reasons: cost, space, chemicals, decay. Of those reasons, personally I think that cost and space are the more important issues. If cost is an issue, is it any cheaper to not be embalmed? If space or decay is an issue, could we not figure out a "natural" way (since people don't like "chemicals") to quickly leave only skeletal remains for smaller storage? Surely cremationists would not have a problem with a reasonable method of quick decay because this is essentially what burning the body is.
When the James ossuary box showed up a year or so ago I thought that was kind of interesting and whatever process they would have used seemed worth looking into (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary). Since I am a biochemist I often find the argument against using chemicals hard to swallow because we are surrounded in chemicals. Our body is one large chemistry laboratory. Nevertheless, I understand that people do not want "foreign" chemicals injected into the body. How about Christ? What were they going to do to his body? What was the acceptable Jewish practice at the time?
I have another series of similar topics to discuss. What about our modern understanding of anatomy? I believe that most of our understanding of the human anatomy had its beginnings in grave robbery and the cutting open of unwilling cadavers. How important is it that we be consistent with our view of body in life and in death?
I will close with this: When my mother and father died we didn't immediately have a funeral and I think that a lot of people had a hard time grieving. I guess it brings up the question, "Is a funeral for the dead or the living?"
Posted by: Joe | Apr 22, 2006 5:19:06 PM
As an Orthodox Christian, I am not to be cremated, but I must say I wish Orthodox churches had columbaria. I would far rather my body (in whatever form) end up in a church instead of in a big-city cemetery. I really dislike the latter; they are nothing like country churchyards - they seem more like the post-death equivalent of living in a huge high-rise where one can remain anonymous. Since I live in a city, I don't see any hope for ending up in a country churchyard - and I feel wistful whenever I see a columbarium, esp one behind the altar, as in a local Episcopal church.
Posted by: Juli | Apr 22, 2006 6:59:58 PM
may i respectfully submit two of my web sites that deal with what happens to our mortal coils after life here on earth ends:
http://www.mausoleumproblems.homestead.com
http://www.adipocere.homestead.com
caution: though both sites are educational and factual, their bluntness on the subject of death and decay contain text and images which some may find disturbing.
Posted by: =adi= | Apr 22, 2006 11:30:35 PM
I read Mr Moore's original essay and all the following comments with interest. I found myself being touched--both by the "pros" and the "cons"--who have so faithfully (earnestly) and intelligently (thoughtfully) have expressed their veiwpoints. This is why Touchstone is such a needed and awesome blog/magazine today!
We need a forum for Christains of all stripes to think through, and, always with charity, to discuss with each other issues such as cremation vs burial. I don't have an answer, but it moves me that there are folks out there who care, who are willing to consider their practices in a religous and principled way. This in itself is refreshing from the dust-dry and lowest-common-denominator popular cultural zeitgeist!!!
Despite our differences here on earth, may we all be united in the presence of God someday.
Posted by: Ann Church | Apr 22, 2006 11:45:39 PM
I was a cremationist for a few years while I was attending college. The bones are not detroyed, in fact that is what the ashes are, is dried out bones. Therefore it seems to me, unless the final disposition of the ashes is in a wet place, cremation actually preserves better than does burial. The crushing of the bones after cremation has to do with the practice of scattering. The law (Washington State) states that the cremains be reduced in size to the point where they are unrecognizable as human bone fragments. This is so that one can scatter them, or bury them and someone finding them later would not be concerned for a murder or other unresolved death.
Finally, I do not follow the logic of cremation inherently denying the sacredness of the human body or the resurrection. It does seem to me that cremation is an inferior practice, but I have been unable to find a logical theological argument against it, only emotional ones.
Posted by: Steve Harrison | Apr 23, 2006 9:59:42 AM
What if you you don't have enough money to be a good Christian and get buried both according to the canons and the laws of the USA? Will you go to hell? Or will God make you an exception? How much does God really care about ecclesiastical law?
Sheesh, I thought God had enough with man-made traditions that you just have to follow to be considered one of his elect when he dealt with the Pharisees. I'll bet none of his disciples guessed that what he was really doing was setting up a new authority for making even more obligatory laws and traditions.
Posted by: Josh S | Apr 23, 2006 12:22:45 PM
How one views death, whether holding Gnostic notions or apostolic ones, makes all the difference in the world. No, cremation is not a sin, nor is it a Christian act, i.e. a witness of the hope that is within us. There are good biblical reasons to reject it (see below, 1 Cor 15; 1 Peter).
Discussing embalming fluids, finances, God's ability to resurrect scattered ashes, etc., misunderstands the point Dr. Moore was making. To say it is not an overtly "Christian act" is to say that it is not an expression of the Christian faith for all the world to see.
Yes, Christians are free to cremate or bury. No, cremation is not a sin. And, yes, individual circumstances determine one's decision. However, all things being equal, burial, rather than cremation, expresses the idea that Christians have merely fallen asleep, that death has no sting or victory, that this life is not all there is (1 Cor. 15). Of course, burial is merely a symbolic gesture of our hope. The body decays, but who stands around and waits for it. The graveside service is not about decay but hope of things to come, a commital.
By burying our loved one's body, we are telling those around us that we have a "living hope through the resurrection of Christ" (1 Peter).
What if Christ had been cremated? It would not be the stone rolled away but the urn tipped over and the ashes missing. Try writing a hymn with that one.
Just like tucking in a child for bed, the Christian is "laid to rest", in the hopes of rising again in Christ. The picture that is given in burial is a more biblically faithful picture in this regard. Cremating a body does not communicate hope, but frugality. Dr. Moore's point, as I see it, is simply that cremation communicates to the unbelieving world the fatalistic notion that this life is all there is, while burial communicates that something greater is coming.
Posted by: steve | Apr 23, 2006 2:20:42 PM
Steve,
I understand the arguments, but despite your citations, I still do not see how an intellectually honest Evangelical Protestant can pass judgment on cremation. It boils down to the notion that to burn the body implies an intent which may not apply in 21st century Americans. If, say, the minister performing a commitment ceremony over the ashes proclaims the hope of resurrection then that should dispel the concern "that cremation communicates to the unbelieving world the fatalistic notion that this life is all there is."
While I am Southern Baptist, I find that Dr. Moore often articulates that some act or lifestyle choice "is not a Christian act" or lifestyle choice without any citation to Scripture or even allusion thereto. He has in the past criticized women working outside the home and never addressed my reply citing Proverbs 31 as a counter example where the very thing he criticized was lauded in Scripture. Now he criticizes cremation without a single citation to Scripture.
David say denies that Protestants do not rely on non-Scriptural tradition, saying, "Protestants recognize Scripture as the first authority. At least ones with meaningful ties to the Reformation."
David, it may be true that Protestants look to non-Scriptural traditions to understand how early Christians understood Scripture, but they do so only as persuasive authority, not mandatory authority and if they find no initial Scriptural support for the tradition, they reject the tradition as non-Biblical -- that is practically the definition of Evangelical Protestantism.
The SBC, of which Dr. Moore is a leading member, has rejected all but two of the sacraments of tradition and refuses to recognize the two it keeps, baptism and communion, as sacraments, but gives them purely symbolic and memorial meaning. It rejects the tradition of infant baptism, insisting on credo-baptism. It apparently rejects the tradition against contraception, finding no Scripture applicable, despite numerous citations to Scripture to support the tradition by the founders of Protestantism. It rejects apostolic succession, because it can find no Scriptural support. It insist on congregation rule against tradition, finding Scriptural support in favor of their position and against the tradition.
Evangelical Protestants (such as the SBC) insist on Scriptural support for any tradition and reject traditions absent it. Therefore, I repeat, what is the Scriptural basis for condemning cremation?
Posted by: GL | Apr 23, 2006 4:32:05 PM
GL,
I am not implying that people who cremate their loved ones intend to communicate the wrong message to the world, or even that they intend to communicate anything at all, other than "Good-bye, we'll miss you". What I am saying is that regardless of intentions, for many cremation communicates something far different than burial. For others, a minister expressing the hope of resurrection over the urn is sufficient.
I believe, however, that the biblical image of the Christian having fallen asleep in death is better served in burial rather than cremation.
If this image of hope is unimportant or irrelevant or inconsequential to some, then I guess cremation is the route to go. In that sense, however, cremation is neither a "Christian act", nor un-Christian, nor sinful, unless done apart from faith.
Nonetheless, cremation is not an intentional expression, in both word and imagery, of one's hope in the resurrection of the body, not to say that the one who grieves is not hopeful in Christ. In my mind, there is a difference. Of course, I cannot speak for Dr. Moore on his word choices, only my own.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 23, 2006 5:24:39 PM
![[Read More]](/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fcremation20option.jpg&imageTitle=444766-320353-thumbnail.jpg){kind=link}