“As hellfire receded, there advanced the literal fires of the crematorium.”
So writes Oxford historian Diarmaid MacCulloch in the concluding chapter of his massive Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. The
history ends with a chapter on “culture wars,” the ways Christianity is
experiencing change and tumult as it enters the twenty-first century.
In the conclusion, MacCulloch traces out many of the controversies one
might expect: from the challenges to Orthodoxy in a post-Soviet world
to the Anglican sexual debates to the American fights over abortion and
secularism and liberalism.
One of the primary changes in Christianity the historian sees,
however, would probably surprise most Americans as being a “culture
war” issue at all: cremation and burial.
Increasing rates of cremation in the West, MacCulloch writes, are
surprising because cremation “is the abandonment of a key aspect of
Christian practice since its early days.” MacCulloch demonstrates that
a primary feature of the early Christian church was as “burial club.”
He shows how “universally archaeologists are able to detect the spread
of Christian culture through the ancient and early medieval world by
the excavation of corpse burials oriented east-west.”
The historian also shows the roots of contemporary cremation in
protest against historic creedal Christianity, including, in its modern
form, by Italian liberal nationalists.
MacCulloch, no conservative, establishes that the unanimous voice of
the church, in every sector, was for burial over against cremation, and
concludes the traditionalist case (that cremation is a pagan practice
inconsistent with historic Christianity) is “unanswerable.”
For MacCulloch, there are several implications of the skyrocketing
cremation rates. The first is that the theological and doxological
claims against it, once held with unanimity, are not even discussed by
cremation proponents. Arguments instead focus on public health, cost
(and I would add the American evangelical response: “why not?”).
“The removal of a corpse’s final parting from a church, which is a
community place of worship, a setting for all aspects of Christian
life, to a crematorium, a specialized and often rather depressingly
clinical office room for dealing with death” is a liturgical evolution
of massive proportions, MacCulloch suggests.
Moreover, he argues, cremation also has profound doctrinal implications.
“Death is not so much distanced as sanitized and domesticated, made
part of the spectrum of consumer choice in a consumer society,” he
writes. “The Church is robbed of what was once one of its strongest
cards, its power to pronounce and give public liturgical shape to loss
and bewilderment at the apparent lack of pattern in the brief span of
human life.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I’ve written here in Touchstone and here in Christianity Today about why I oppose (with the twenty centuries of the great cloud of witnesses) the practice of cremation, and here (again in Touchstone)
about why burial is so essential to Christian witness. I’m not
interested (right now) in re-debating that. I just find it interesting
that this new history marks out the cremation move as a significant
shift. I agree.
Sometimes the “culture wars” that really matter aren’t the ones
you’re screaming about with unbelievers in the public square; they’re
the ones in which you’ve already surrendered, and never even noticed.











I have been in a conversation with friends about wedding gown fashions. Many Christians today believe the white wedding gown is an important statement about the modesty and purity of the bride, etc. etc., and they have the idea that the white wedding gown has been the thing for millennia. But it seems that Queen Victoria really set the trend, and our wealthy culture has perpetuated it since after WWII–only we can afford a costly gown that can be worn only once. It has made me think about how easy it is to judge whether people have done the proper thing.
A relative was cremated recently, his ashes scattered in the Gulf of Mexico. He had a generic service, not particularly Christian, but I saw great Christian symbolism and beauty in the way his ashes floated away gently in the current, and I was reminded of “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”
My church teaches but does not require burial, and I’m interested in doing things well (weddings AND funerals), so this is good to think about. But I think, too, that it is possible to allow for departures from tradition to be “things indifferent” in the Church.
There is an interesting article on this topic in the Christian Century. The author argues that cremation is lacking because it short circuits the church’s burial liturgy. he doesn’t argue that cremation is wrong; he argues that it needs a liturgical accounting the body. Practically speaking, the article maintains, the church has allowed cremation to make the body vanish and with it the reality of death. My addition: when death disappears so does the need for resurrection and the need for Jesus.
Here is the article:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8331
Perhaps oddly, but after reading this, I find myself wondering about the Ancient-Future aspect of Emergentism.
If their aim is to get back to Christianity’s genuine roots, I wonder what sort of funeral liturgies they have developed?
Kamilla
I am aware that Christian burial can be a powerful witness in places like India but I wonder if it is also sometimes mixed with superstition. Are there some Christians who imagine that their bodily resurrection would be more difficult if they were cremated? And what of Christians and others for that matter who have perished in fires or natural disasters that made recovery of their bodies impossible. Will their resurrection be second class? Frankly the expense of a typical funeral and burial service can seem a little obscene. Another consideration comes to mind, one of the blessings of modern scientific knowledge, and that is the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule which speaks both of God’s creative wisdom and the peculiar individuality belonging to each of us. When the time of the blessed hope, the resurrection of our bodies draws nigh God will not require a physical scrap of our being to bring it to pass. Our coded identity is cherished in His eternal mind and the body that is raised will have all the implied but frustrated perfection contained in the original intention. That last sentence sounded a little more Platonic, even gnostic that I intended, but I believe that this disagreement could recede before a more hopeful and powerful proclamation of the Easter message.
A brief response to the comment (cremation is a pagan practice inconsistent with historic Christianity)
Was the Egyptian practice of mummification and interment in pyramids less pagan than an Indian funeral pyre?
Dr. Moore,
You link to the Touchstone Symposium on Christian Burial and, in Wilfred McClay’s article in that series, I found this:
” . . .the modern city of San Francisco has proscribed the building of cemeteries and the interment of the dead inside its city limits . . . What does this tell us about the future of San Fracisco, and us?”
What, indeed. If you pause for a moment to think about it, it is so very fitting that the city of the living dead, given over to deadly sexual expressions is a city that seems to wish to deny the end to which so many of its citizens are rapidly careening.
Kamilla
@ Bob Sprigley: I’m not sure if it matters what’s “more pagan” or “less pagan.” Cremation isn’t a bad witness because it is pagan, it’s a bad witness because it is not Christian: it denies the importance of the Body and trivializes (or at least obscures) the Hope of the Resurrection.
“it is not Christian: it denies the importance of the Body and trivializes (or at least obscures) the Hope of the Resurrection.”
Well, a reasonable argument. God Himself didn’t immolate Moses, He buried His friend when He could have done either. And Jacob’s bones, etc.
But how many of God’s chosen ‘remain’ after 6,000 years? What of Abel, rotted away? What of the bodies of His martyrs burned at the stake? Isn’t the point of the resurrection that He has power over all the nature of life and death, including the formation and destruction of the body (cf Matt 10:28)?
My greatest hope is knowing God is bigger than my corpse. And I truly look forward to a glorified body in Heaven, specially crafted by the Master the way this present one was.
(not to mention a full head of hair…)
By the way, I recommend “Grave Matters” as a terrific, current reference on these sorts of things from a green Christian perspective.
http://www.gravematters.us/
Bull: There’s a difference between the mere physical occurrence of a body burning to ashes and a man’s active decision to have himself cremated. Maggie refers not to the physical occurrence but to the willful act. Her point is about Christian witness, not about God’s power.
Appreciate your thoughts, Jonathan (and Maggie) – my feeling is the burden of Christian witness is also borne by those at the grave (or water, or mountain) side who can give a testimony on why that decision was made, should the question come up. A statement in ones will could do the same.
Would my decision to be buried or cremated be a game-changer for someone else to receive Christ? That’s the question you’re asking, right?
I would like to say that before I had read any of the touchstone articles on this topic, when I was visiting Charleston, I had the opportunity to visit some of the oldest churches in this country. I was struck by the beauty of the old graveyards, and paused to wonder why the Church had gotten away from the practice of maintaining them.
That being said, I don’t see why this has to be an all or nothing proposition. Is there any reason why the same type of service could not be performed in conjunction with a cremation? I’m mostly Norwegian, and historical Norwegian funeral practices would have had less to do with belief about the body,and more to do with the impossibility of digging a 6′ hole in earth that is frozen for much of the year. The article mentioned flag burning as an example of how we burn things we hate, and there are protesters that do this. But the author overlooked the fact that a patriot may also burn their flag, for that is how flags are always disposed of. As a symbol, a flag is too precious to be allowed the indignity of decay, and for this reason I see equal beauty in the funeral pyre.
“…the city of the living dead…”
Please, let’s not get so sententious. Like any other large city, San Francisco is a complicated place. If SF is the city of the living, the city of the dead is ten miles south: Colma. The cemeteries of SF were moved there in the early 1900s due to lack of space in the city limits for the homes and businesses of the living (SF is situated on a peninsula, with no room for expansion). In Colma today the dead outnumber the living by something like a hundred to one.
Re: cremation vs burial – Obviously, God is not limited by our practices. This is a question of symbolism. The question is whether or not such symbols matter.
Permitting creation after centuries of consistent opposition was one of the biggest mistakes made by the Catholic Church in recent decades. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy with those who face the sky-high burial prices of the modern funeral industry.
Is cremation finally an adiaphoron or is it not? Must consciences be bound to oppose it or must they not?
I am not sure that I would want my loved ones or myself to be cremated, the idea of burning bothers me, yet…however…the allowance of cremation has also allowed the return of the ‘church graveyard’ in the form of a columbarium. My own church has one, and there is lovely one at Our Lady of Atonement (RC Anglican Use, you can see pictures at their website, atonementonline.com ). So cremation does not necessarily mean a ‘disposal’ that trivializes the importance of the body. For our church, the body is present for the funeral mass, then cremated and interred later. This gives a strong witness to the ‘communion of saints’, for the parish loved ones are literally there with us.
Permitting creation after centuries of consistent opposition was one of the biggest mistakes made by the Catholic Church in recent decades. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy with those who face the sky-high burial prices of the modern funeral industry.
As a RC, I thoroughly concur, James. I continue to hope (against hope) instinctive revulsion will prevent its wide use, but instinctive revulsion is today so easily overcome. Since the original post was by a Protestant (mentioning in passing the most powerful Evangelical argument: “Why not?”), my better judgement would be to let this be an intramural dispute, to the extent that it is at all. That it is at all, however, is cause for great sorrow; and that my magisterium has of late permitted this abominable practice is cause for even more.
One question that must be answered by the “Why not?” crowd, however, is what of Christ’s post mortem wounds?
With all due respect, most of the arguments for and against cremation overlook the simple reason why the ancient Church prescribed burial: respect for the body that God had created.
Death was and is seen by the Church (I speak particularly of the Eastern Orthodox Church, because it is what I know best) as unnatural, a sorrowful result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. The essential question is: why intentionally destroy the body any more than death and disease already have?
There is no concern that God would be unable to resurrect the body from ashes, or from parts scattered all over the globe. Look at what God does in Ezekiel 37, with the valley of dry bones. God certainly does not need our help to resurrect the dead!
But God does require our respect for Him and what He has made. Just as we must take care of the Earth and our environment, out of respect for His handiwork; so should we also show proper respect for the body that He made and gave to our departed loved one.
Disclaimer: I am an Orthodox Christian Priest still in seminary. What I have to say, is I hope, representative of the teaching of the church, but is in no way authoritative. As various people note, cremation comes out of pagan practices; people inadvertently burned up in building fires etc can and will be resurrected, same with those burned at the crematory. God’s power is not limited by the physical body’s current state or lack thereof. In writing a paper on this topic, I found references to pagans burning Christians and scattering their ashes on a river (or sea) and taunting the Christians “now see if your God can resurrect you.” The pagans utterly missed the point. the ancient (and current in Orthodox Churches) understanding is that both body and soul participate in Holiness and sanctification (Theosis to use a seminary term). Thus, the body must be treated with respect. Yes, most people will decompose, and the process is not pretty. Interestingly, some very holy people do NOT decompose: St. Sergius in Russia, St. Spyridon, St. Dionysius of Zachynthos in Greece, St. John of San Francisco USA, nor were they mummified. This is a blessing for us, showing the effects of grace on the body. Another clue to the traditional approach on this topic is the funeral service, much of which was written by St. John of Damascus in the 800′s. I seem to recall that there are about 30 references to “sleep” and “rest” and “peace” in that glorious liturgical poetry. If you examine what really happens in crematories it is anything but restful or peaceful. Most of the time the big bones don’t turn to powder, they have to be run through a thing that somewhat resembles a blender to powderize them, after things like hip replacements are taken out. Pacemakers would explode (the battery) that has to be cut out ahead of the cremation…Some people want to make various environmental cases for cremation: this is hard to buy, chemically speaking. You can do soil samples down wind of a crematorium and find all kinds of things like mercury from fillings and dioxins in the soil that trace directly back to the smoke stack of the furnace used for cremation. Finally, cost: there are lots of things you can do to lower the cost of burial, most, possibly all, states require funeral homes to use whatever casket you choose or build yourself, for example. BTW, the word cemetery comes from the Greek word for sleeping.
Steve -
“As a RC, I thoroughly concur, James. I continue to hope (against hope) instinctive revulsion will prevent its wide use, but instinctive revulsion is today so easily overcome. Since the original post was by a Protestant (mentioning in passing the most powerful Evangelical argument: “Why not?”), my better judgement would be to let this be an intramural dispute, to the extent that it is at all. That it is at all, however, is cause for great sorrow; and that my magisterium has of late permitted this abominable practice is cause for even more.”
I feel the same way, I remember when going to adoration seeing the display for the local church’s new columbarium (with appeals for money to help build it natch) and being saddened and repulsed, but my first thought was, “yeah of course they are, why am I surprised?” It’s of a piece with all the abominable developments in the Church in the last 50 years, and there have been so many.
I agree with this post, and I am an Anglican. It surprises me how the RC Catechism makes this a matter of adiaphora.
There’s so much to disagree with here I hardly know where to begin. I think I’ll start with the “we’ve always done it this way” argument. Whether we can detect the spread of Christian culture due to burial rites has an apples to oranges relation to Godly living. Dr. Moore shakes his head and utters a tsk, tsk at the “Why not?” attitude of contemporary Christianity concerning cremation. But it is doctrine (read that, theological teaching) that should determine what is acceptable worshipful living here in the New Covenant. And if the basis for the principle of burial is that it’s tradition or that Mary brought spices to the tomb, no wonder the Church is stumbling in this century for propositional defense.
But we should treat the body with respect, right? And what’s more respectful than allowing decay to rot the corpse that soon becomes rat, worm, and insect infested. What great respect! Oh, yes–out of sight, out of mind. As long as it happens below ground, it is fine for the body to be humiliated with the creepy crawly. How can we possibly equate a nice headstone, fresh flowers, and mown lawn with respecting the body just because we keep from looking at the undergoing corruption we’ve caused to incur by our depositing it 6 feet under?
And then there’s the whole person argument. “We’re not Gnostics!” is the claim. “The real us is not just spirit; it is spirit and body!” Yes, but the realness of the body is not the particular decaying heap underground or the ashes floating on the sea. The spirit made alive with Christ’s transforming hand will receive a new body, not just a recomposition of that particular decomposition. Think carefully…do you seriously believe that with a finite amount of matter and energy that not even part of the make-up of a single cell of one body could partly be existent in any other body here on earth? Just considering that water has no reproductive qualities should tell us that the water in us now was at one time either in a lake, ocean, river, pond, sewer system, or another person’s drinking glass. I am not arguing that God will not use the substance of this earth in our new bodies, but to assume that the exact same cells I have now will be used is being a little hazy. Some of that matter and energy that’s in me could have been in my great-great-great (and on) grandfather. Do we have to share bodies at the resurrection?
Praise God that he transforms. Praise God that the dead in Christ will rise. Praise God that his death and resurrection make an everlasting relationship with him possible. This is the gospel this world needs to hear. But to start drawing lines in the sand between and among us because the burial people claim they’re the right ones with no more biblical basis except for Mary’s spice offering is a horrid example of creating disharmony among us where none should exist.
It’s the Commies who have the no-rats-or-decay, respect thing right, what with Lenin’s tomb and all. Well, although they also do the mass grave. But these aren’t practical for most of us, so by all means run em through the broiler, grind their bones, and postition them on the mantle as lugubrious objets d’art.
Actually, my ex’s father was on the workbench in the garage for a couple of years in a big old baggie till they finally poured him into the ocean.
I don’t want to enter the argument itself, but what you see here is a debate between those who, finding Christian tradition and custom normative, believe it should be abandoned only for good and demonstrable reasons, and those who think that the burden of proof is on tradition as to declare why it should be maintained in the face of (supposedly) objective ratiocination.
In other words, the debate cuts far deeper than just the issue at hand. As for me, I’m with Burke, Chesterton and Kirk here: don’t knock out the old walls just because they’re old. Age notwithstanding, they may prove to be load-bearing.
“But we should treat the body with respect, right? And what’s more respectful than allowing decay to rot the corpse that soon becomes rat, worm, and insect infested. What great respect! Oh, yes–out of sight, out of mind. As long as it happens below ground, it is fine for the body to be humiliated with the creepy crawly. How can we possibly equate a nice headstone, fresh flowers, and mown lawn with respecting the body just because we keep from looking at the undergoing corruption we’ve caused to incur by our depositing it 6 feet under?”
See what I mean? Dan here knows more about “respect” than 3000+ years of Judeo-Christian history, with its millions and millions of univocal witnesses.
With respect to burial and corruption, I note here the practice in many countries–how widespread and during what time periods I don’t know–of using ossuaries, or bone boxes. I never knew the relationship between burial and ossuaries, such as have been discovered in the Holy Land from the first century. It was recently (and may still be) a custom in Greece (I am told it is also in Romania) that the body is buried and 5-7 years later the body is disinterred–what remains at that time are bones, which are cleaned (with water and wine) and put into an ossuary. The initial burying of the body is seen as returning it to the earth from whence it came, scripturally speaking, where the earth finalizes the natural course of the corruption of the body due to the Fall–sin–and then the bones are brought up into the light and the air, perhaps in anticipation of the resurrection along the lines of the vision of Ezekiel and the valley of the dry bones. But burning the body deliberately seems to be a short circuiting of another process that has been in place for centuries. Many monasteries in the Mediterranean world have the bones of the monks stored above ground. As I have quipped elsewhere, is deliberate cremation an attempt to “destroy the evidence”?
My wife pointed out to me (and I agree) that my earlier comment did not seem so “respectful” of the other commenters here. And for that I apologize. I certainly do not want to either be or appear arrogant about my position on a certain matter. If I offended any of you, again, I apologize.
Rob G–I’m not trying to say that my understanding of respect must win the day. I’m saying that what truly determines respect is difficult to ascertain. That being the case, you can’t merely say A is respectful and B is not therefore we A is the only right, Godly way. If I believe B to be more respectful than A, how am I being Godly to violate what I consider respectful. All this to say “respect” is just not clearly definitive enough to be the basis for what we “ought” to do to be right and Godly.
We have to return to a biblical basis for what we do (which Dr. Moore’s comment about Mary bringing spices could satisfy), but to go beyond ourselves and say “You must do this too,” we have to have a taught biblical principle, not just something we think is a good example. Without a taught biblical principle (and by that I mean the Bible is teaching us this principle), I think we ought to let Paul’s instruction in Romans 14:5 rule–”Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”
There’s a new process that allows the body to be basically pressure cooked down into its amino acid components; this allows the mercury to be collected and the larger bone fragments to be crumbled by hand. It was invented in Sweden a few years ago.
Where are all these bodies going to go? How many acres of bodies will it take before we realize that the dead would crown the living from the Earth? In some countries, you rent a grave; the body rots, the family comes and collects what’s left and put them somewhere else, then the chamber is cleaned out and used for someone else. Otherwise, their cemeteries would have grown unmanageable.
Brad, I suppose that’s why God created us to be really and truly biodisposable (eventually).
“I’m saying that what truly determines respect is difficult to ascertain.”
And what I’m saying is that for the Christian is is precisely that which is NOT difficult to ascertain. The entire Judeo-Christian tradition, in almost unanimous assent up until not all that many years ago, has stated that burial is respectful and cremation is not. In my book that witness trumps any Johnny-come-lately arguments for cremation, unless it can be proven demonstrably that that witness has been wrong all along.
“We have to return to a biblical basis for what we do (which Dr. Moore’s comment about Mary bringing spices could satisfy), but to go beyond ourselves…”
If you take a sola scripturist approach to this question you are going to come away without a clear-cut answer, although the Bible does give hints, as Dr. Moore has indicated (another strong one is the notion of St. Paul’s that the mortal body is in some sense the “seed” of the resurrection body; we don’t burn seeds, we plant them.) But if you can’t rely solely on the Scripture here where do you go next? The light inside your own head or the light shining from 3,000 years of teaching and custom? Who are the ones who are not “going beyong themselves” here?
“It was invented in Sweden a few years ago.”
Figures. Do you buy your casket in a flat box then bring it home and put it together yourself?
I agree with the importance of preserving traditions as a general rule, but change is not bad in itself. (In other words, don’t rush to tear down the old walls, nor refuse to build an addition just because it’s new!) The “burden” of proof is not the issue either; if I challenged anyone here on priestesses or homosexuality or abortion, the reply would not be to shrug and say “That’s how it’s always been” — there would be no hesitation in providing any number of cogent reasons.
So what are the reasons for burying vs. cremating? The term that keeps coming up is “respect”, but as Dan pointed out (with some mild sarcasm, hardly out of place around here), respect is relative to culture. In matters religious, there is always an immutable element, since God does not change; but man does, and thus religious practices always have a fixed part and a part that depends on the time and place. The fact that our bodies must be respected even in death nobody disputes; but how that respect is expressed may surely vary.
Suzanne makes the good point that though our bodies may turn to dust, to deliberately hasten that seems to encourage the corruption that sin brought into the world. But then slowing that decay must be a sign of respect against corruption, and thus mummifying is even more Christian than burial! But that doesn’t sound right either, unless perhaps you’re an ancient Egyptian, who would indeed see that as a sign of greater respect.
The fact is, pagans may have used cremation as a sign of defiance against the Christian resurrection, but they did not use it as a sign of disrespect against the dead themselves. Respect for the dead is found across cultures, but the different manifestations are still all intended to show respect in some way. The fact that ordinary Christians can think of cremation without the defiant aspect ever even occurring to them must in some sense be a good thing: it shows that that old pagan idea has died out. After all, isn’t the reason that those pagans thought that way simply because they confused Yahweh with their pagan pseudo-gods, whose whims could be thwarted by simple acts like burning a body, or, say, turning yourself into a tree? The True God has conquered those false ideas so thoroughly that people just don’t think that way any more.
That of course is a change in culture: the defiant idea is not hard for us to grasp, and many of us are quite familiar with it, as a bit of historical trivia. But nobody (or not the vast majority) takes it seriously. Most Christians are not disturbed by Christmas trees or Easter eggs either, whether or not we know of ties to pagan symbolism. The early Church was prudent to shun pagan symbols when people were holding on to them as way to cover all their bases; now that nobody believes in Zeus or Thor or Osiris any more, it is safe to baptize such things and give them new life, a new Christian meaning. Perhaps the times have changed enough that now we can think about baptizing cremation as well?
Fr. Mark also makes a very good point about the bodies of certain saints being preserved. Still, those are special cases, not the natural (so to speak) result of burial. If I refused cremation because of such an expectation, that would surely be hubris. (To be sure, if God made a saint out of me, that would be a much greater miracle than restoring my ashes to preserve them!) And just as people die under different conditions (sometimes with no remains remaining at all), so not everyone would choose to be cremated.
The mechanical unnaturalness of modern cremation is, I think, another good point against it, as Fr. Mark said, anything but peaceful. However, that is not an argument against cremation per se, but only against its harsh industrial forms. Cremation as more gently practised would leave the bones behind to be stored in an ossuary or somesuch. (It’s similar to arguments about vegetarianism: eating meat is not against Christian doctrine, but if you know that a particular business mistreats its animals, it might be immoral to patronise them.) In that case, what we ought to be doing is encouraging Christians to seek out suitable, respectful forms of cremation.
Yet another point raised several times in the linked Touchstone articles is the communal aspect of the graveyard. It is important not merely to respect dead bodies, but also to acknowledge that the dead are part of our community. This is an especially important aspect of Christianity because the dea are not only part of the Christian community in memory, or even in anticipation of their future return, but they are part of the Body of Christ right now. (Even though the RC allows cremation, I believe it still does not allow you to keep Uncle Fred on the mantlepiece.) Again, though, in this case the real issue is not cremation itself but to keep some shared communal recognition.
In sum: Christian belief does mandate the respectful treatment of the bodies of the dead. It is possible for cremation to be carried out respectfully (depending on the prevailing norms and customs, which the Church has always taken into account; the symbolism both for and against any particular act). The acceptance of cremation as not unChristian is a good thing insofar as it indicates a loss of old superstition. Perhaps of more concern should be the funeral and surrounding rituals. Is it an earthly-focussed eulogy of what is past and gone, or is it prayer and hope for the coming resurrection? Regardless of cremation vs. burial, are the dead kept and acknowledged in public cemeteries? Overall, what part is natural and what part is cultural; what is commanded and what is recommended?
David, an enlargement of your point on the community aspect. Our community, indeed our communion, is not just ‘spiritual’ whatever that means. It is physical. Intentionally destroying the body is akin to excommunicating oneself.
The burial practices of the monks on Mt. Athos are a perfect case in point. Mt. Athos is a rocky island. They have little space. Following Orthodox practice, the dead are not embalmed. They are buried for a few years then disintered and the bones placed in the ossuary of the monastary in which the departed monk lived. Each monsastry thus has the physical presence of every monk who has ever lived and prayed at that monastary going back over 1000 years.
In this manner the sense of connectedness is maintained, the eschatological reality is ever present as well as the importance of the Holy Tradition in forming and transforming our mind, soul and body.
When we use professional mortuaries and often pay a lot of money to paint the bodies, perfume the bodies, pump them full of perservatives then stick them in a sealed coffin in the vain hope that they will ‘look so peaceful’ and won’t rot we are attempting to deny death.
There is an element in the thought of some of those who push cremation though that denies the community aspect of our human life and reduces it to an individual presence in an individual moment of time and then ‘we are no more’.
You might be overreacting: nobody said anything about “wrong all along”, only that things change. We have a 3000-year example of not using microphones in church, but that doesn’t make them wicked.
Hm, that’s a good point to add to the general point about deliberate destruction. Of course, you’re also right about the effort and money devoted to trying to paint over death. These are perhaps flip sides of the same thing? In which case, it’s not surprising that as one has become (passively?) accepted, so has the other followed. And the appropriate response should then be to rally against funereal make-overs as much as against cremation.
Being the chief among sinners, at least of the typing variety, I still can’t help pointing out this interesting slip of Brad’s:
“How many acres of bodies will it take before we realize that the dead would crown the living from the Earth?”
CrowN the living?
Hmmm,
Kamilla
“We have a 3000-year example of not using microphones in church, but that doesn’t make them wicked.”
That’s a lame analogy. First of all, it ignores the fact that the 3,000 year Judeo-Christian belief in burial ascribes a moral dimension to how we treat the deceased human body. There is no equivalent moral aspect to the use/disuse of microphones.
Secondly, it assumes that the appeal to tradition/custom is an appeal to antiquity only, which is not the case. As St. Vincent of Lerins said, we must be careful to hold to what has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.”
“The fact that ordinary Christians can think of cremation without the defiant aspect ever even occurring to them must in some sense be a good thing: it shows that that old pagan idea has died out.”
No, what it shows is that the majority of ordinary Christians have either forgotten what their faith teaches, or they’ve been improperly catechized. The faith has been compromised on this issue by worldliness. That, or else a Platonic mindset has made its way into some quarters: “Who cares what you do with the body? It’s just a box for the soul.”
My suspicion would be that it’s a combination of these things that has produced the current blase attitude about cremation. Growing up as a Baptist kid in the late 60s/early 70s, then later as a member of the A/G, it was pretty much commonly understood that “Christians don’t use cremation.” That common understanding has been lost in the ensuing 30 years for the reasons I mentioned above.
Cremation doesn’t change the body into something spiritual. Matter and energy are constants of the physical. Therefore, because the monks put bones in an ossuary does not contribute to the fellowship of their Christian community any more or less than either the cremated remains kept or scattered somewhere or the converted energy still with us in physical sense (though you can’t see it). The matter and energy that made up every person’s body that has ever lived is with us still–this is creation…this is Paul’s seed.
Why is it so that ideas of the past are always venerated over the present. Why are the ideas (perhaps studied, prayerful ideas) of the present ridiculed and tossed out because we assume that only light shone from past generations. Where is the Berean type responsibility to act on our own communion with God rather than on that of someone else who may have let culture or custom (or maybe simply some twisted idea that the past is always right) guide his actions? Should we write out of our Bible’s Daniel and Paul (and countless others) because they did not blindly and passively accept previous ideas as of more worth than anything they could imagine? Jesus acted against the course of established Judaistic thought time after time precisely because the gathered opinion of the line of prior religious leaders was in error.
I am not arguing that the past has to be wrong. Surely we should not assume ourselves to be the only source of light, but pay close attention to the thoughts of others who trust and worship our God, past and present. But it is to their reasons that we should give attention–not just to their decisions. If we’re banking on the respect aspect, why do our current burial customs look nothing like those of the past? Why is our “light” now to be trusted in custom when the only thing we have in common with those good Christians of a thousand years ago is underground containment? Why do we assume that that is the only action of respect that they assumed? The respect argument and the let’s-trust-the-past argument are both full of holes because the current generation has decided to pick and choose which aspects of past burial rites to label respectful and which aspects to reject.
The current blase attitude about cremation results from the defenders of the past (or the present for that matter) failing to articulate a valid reason for non-cremation. (I’m contrasting cremation with “non-cremation” instead of with burial because modern burial has no correlation with burial of ancient times except for the fact that the body is not burned.)
It is also extremely interesting that whenever someone fails to provide sufficient reason in argument, the usual fallback is to anger and/or labeling his/her opponent as “worldly”–a sinister, yet vague denunciation that, of course, does not need to be defined because everyone understands what “worldly” means. It means…uh…well…anything that I’m against; yes, that’s it!
“Why is it so that ideas of the past are always venerated over the present. Why are the ideas (perhaps studied, prayerful ideas) of the present ridiculed and tossed out because we assume that only light shone from past generations.”
Dan,
You should read (again) in those posts defending normal Christian burial practices that the appeal is not to antiquity but to Tradition–the unbroken witness of the Church that stretches back to the time of the Apostles. I am particularly sensitive to this as an Orthodox Christian–nothing “changes” in the Church unless it is put in practice, and then accepted by everyone, for a good three or four hundred years.
The practice of cremation will /not/ be accepted by the Orthodox Church in this way, because it would be breaking tradition with the communion of the saints–who are here, with us now, not only in their matter–whether it be a miraculously preserved body or a pile of dust in some untrodden place–but in their prayers, and in their real, heavenly presence. Cremation does not square with the faith of the Apostles or the communion of the saints–you can either accept this humbly, trying to enter into the stream of the Church’s life, or you can trust your own opinions, your own ideas–which, like it or not, are influenced by a post-Christian culture.
“If we’re banking on the respect aspect, why do our current burial customs look nothing like those of the past? Why is our “light” now to be trusted in custom when the only thing we have in common with those good Christians of a thousand years ago is underground containment.”
The Orthodox burial service was written in the 8th century–so I can say with authority (the authority of the saints, not my own) that our burial rites do look, and sound, much like the ones used by the faithful departed.
Alexis, I am an Evangelical Christian and my response is probably more directed toward Russell Moore and other Evangelical Christians concerning the tradition argument since they would not hold the same view as you concerning tradition. Although I would take issue with your argument of tradition, to discuss that now would be to exponentially add to this. And, obviously, the thread of an article is not the place for so far-reaching a discussion. Suffice it to say that in your Orthodox belief structure, I will grant that you are consistent with your beliefs. (Although I still do not understand demanding the observance of tradition without a firm grasp of its meaning.) But then, I think you might grant that in my structure of faith in which tradition does not play so significant a role, I am not being inconsistent by accepting a change of culture that does not interfere with any truth I find derived from Scripture. And I’m satisfied to leave it at that–differing views that are not the mere Christianity that Touchstone takes pride in balancing on. We’ve argued these views to the edge of our Evangelical/Orthodox differences. I’m fine to leave it there.
“Suffice it to say that in your Orthodox belief structure, I will grant that you are consistent with your beliefs. (Although I still do not understand demanding the observance of tradition without a firm grasp of its meaning.)”
You don’t think the Orthodox Church has a “firm grasp” on the meaning of her own burial rites?
Dan,
As a fellow Evangelical, perhaps I can respond more convincingly to your response.
Let me first say that we can in fact be quite certain of what is respectful and what is not. We can do so by observing the effect of the ritual or practice on those who perform it. When I teach my children to say “Please” and “Thank you” and to refer to adults as “Mr.” or “Mrs.”, I am doing this for my children’s sake. My neighbor is not diminished in his humanity if my children do not thank him for the treat they receive. But my children are. Likewise, what happens to the body of the deceased is important less for the sake of the body itself than for the formation of those who remain. Time constrains me here, and others have done so above, but I think I could make a convincing argument that cremation leads to a diminished understanding of death, judgment, and resurrection. That is enough to render it disrespectful. (On a similar note, Joseph Bottum wrote a provocative essay in First Things a couple of years ago exploring the significance that death and it’s rituals have in strengthening our societal bonds. It was a fascinating read and I commend it to your study!)
You ask for an explicit biblical injunction against cremation. Of course, all of us know that there is none. Neither is there any against contraception. (Or against women’s ordination or homosexual marriage if you set the bar for “explicitness” high enough.) Clearly chapter-and-verse proof-texts can’t always be provided for things that are harmful. Let me offer this, though: in the Bible, in the context of eschatology, fire is always a sign or agent of judgment. It is always a thing to be feared. We may, then, with good confidence, doubt that it is desirable to dispose of bodies in this way. In burial, we are commending the person, body and soul, to the judgment of God. In cremation, we are engaging in a symbol that (for those who know the Bible) can only mean the rendering of judgment.
You say that we should understand the reasons for traditions before we blindly hold to them. Fair enough. But where is your reason for leaving them? I may have missed something you have written above, but I did not see you provide a compelling reason for abandoning the unbroken tradition. You describe the decaying process as being disrespectful, but that is a rather weak argument. On what grounds, then, should cremation be permitted?
The analogy also fails since, unlike michrophones, cremation has been around a long while.
First, my apologies to Alexis and others of the Orthodox tradition. I phrased my parenthetical comment poorly. I did not mean to argue that the Orthodox had less than a firm grasp on the meaning of its burial rites. I think I meant that I do not understand the demand for observance of the tradition because I do not have a firm grasp of its meaning. I was trying to bow out of the discussion on that point for the moment, not fan any flames.
Thanks, TIMC, for your response. I disagree that not using an analogy necessarily contributes to the diminished understanding of a truth. Disrespectful cremation would lead to a number of twisted offshoots. But I do not believe that the understanding of death, judgment, and resurrection is necessarily negatively impacted by simply discontinuing a custom. Only if the one who ignores the custom at the same time believes the custom is inextricably tied as an analogy to a truth does he/she do damage to perception of that truth.
If a child from another country is taught to use another title suitable to its language and culture, would it still be a sign of disrespect because “Mr.” and “Mrs.” were not used? Respect should be taught. But culture can determine the means of respect.
I think you misunderstood my appeal to Scripture. I did not demand a chapter and verse injunction against cremation. I was asking for compelling Scriptural support for requiring the practice. Although fire is at times used to indicate refinement rather than exclusively judgment, I think the point I’m arguing is that any use of fire that I may employ now does not have to be figuratively applied in the sphere of spiritual concern.
My reason for leaving the tradition is that, without a compelling reason for perpetuation, I find more practical activity…well…more practical. It is, for example, the same reason why the tradition of house churches was changed for practical reasons to larger, more community-oriented buildings for worship services. We can find plenty of spiritual analogies to make about the gathering for worship in homes, but without compelling Scriptural support for perpetuating that tradition, I think our “churches” are a fine change in worship centers.
Dan,
Of course culture can determine the means of respect. And that is why, with 2000 years of shared Christian culture giving univocal witness across all denominational, ethnic, and societal lines to a single means of respect for the deceased, we ought to be very cautious against abandoning it. You say “Disrespectful cremation would lead to a number of twisted offshoots,” but that is begging the question. The question is whether, within a Christian theology and milieu (i.e. culture), cremation is by its very nature disrespectful. The fact that the move toward increasing cremation rates is being made in a culture that is driven by materialism and convenience rather than Christian theology ought to give us pause.
You said “I think the point I’m arguing is that any use of fire that I may employ now does not have to be figuratively applied in the sphere of spiritual concern.” But that is just another way of saying “anything I do can mean anything I want.” That may be true for an individual person, but as you pointed out, actions are interpreted within their culture. For Christians who are conversant with Scripture and its metaphors, fire has a single eschatological meaning and it is not one that is appropriate for a funeral observance.
To say that something is “practical” is not giving a reason but only a description. Any action may be said to be “practical” if it leads toward its declared end. The question then is: what is cremation “practical” for? What end are you striving to achieve that causes cremation to be more practical than burial? Is it simply the disposal of dead flesh? Then of course cremation is the most practical. But as followers of Christ we know that the body, even when dead, is more than a collection of atoms that will eventually (through decay or fire) be rearranged into a more convenient form. We sought to have as our goal not simply the disposal of dead flesh but rather teaching ourselves and following generations to have a hope in the real and physical resurrection of the dead.
I was surprised that this thread was still ravelling after posting a comment days ago. Reading the comments that have accrued since then leaves me thinking only about how I might wish to have my own body disposed of. Since I have children who have departed from the faith I am more concerned with them than with some generalized public witness. I hope that my dying days will express a confident expectation and a joyful anticipation of the redemption of my whole being, body and soul, even should those days be accompanied with the suffering of disease. If my children and my spouse if she survives me, would prefer to spare the expense of burial in favor of cremation I want them to know that they have my blessing. Likewise if they wish an elaborate internment service. I suppose that this is something that we might discuss, but I would not want to impose this decision upon them. I would hope to leave them with the thought that my emphasis is on my arrival in future glory and hopeful reunion with each and everyone of them and not with the particulars of my departure.
Amen, Dr. Moore. This is blessed commentary here.
The question was asked:
There’s an interesting Jewish answer to this question that I ran across long ago. From Herman Wouk’s War and Remembrance (for the uninitiated, a novel about World War II and the Holocaust; Wouk is an Orthodox Jew):
As for myself, as an Orthodox Christian, I will be buried, not cremated. God’s ability to work around exceptional cases doesn’t give us license to make the exceptional the norm. (So much less does the avarice of the funeral industry give such license.)