# To Bury or Cremate?



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Excellent post by R. Scott Clark on the Christian view of Burial. 

Find it here.


----------



## Christusregnat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Excellent post by R. Scott Clark on the Christian view of Burial.
> 
> Find it here.



Thanks for posting Benjamin!

My only question about this (perhaps a topic for another thread): is the body really part of the image of God?

Cheers,


----------



## Peairtach

The human body must in some sense be suitable to express God's Image. God in Christ has a human body (and soul) for eternity - albeit a glorified human body.

The human body can't be a divine "after-thought", speaking reverently.


----------



## Christusregnat

Richard Tallach said:


> The human body must in some sense be suitable to express God's Image. God in Christ has a human body (and soul) for eternity - albeit a glorified human body.
> 
> The human body can't be a divine "after-thought", speaking reverently.



I'm not sure I follow. If the body expresses God's image, then God must have a body. God in Christ has a body, but that is part of His unconfused human nature.

Cheers,


----------



## Whitefield

Christusregnat said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human body must in some sense be suitable to express God's Image. God in Christ has a human body (and soul) for eternity - albeit a glorified human body.
> 
> The human body can't be a divine "after-thought", speaking reverently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. If the body expresses God's image, then God must have a body. God in Christ has a body, but that is part of His unconfused human nature.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Indeed, if Christ already has a body why did he have to take on another (incarnation)?


----------



## Tripel

Good post. I wholeheartedly agree. One thing that the post doesn't flesh out is the use of fire in the treatment of our dead. Don't we find burning to be a sign of judgment in Scripture?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Tripel said:


> One thing that the post doesn't doesn't flesh out is the use of fire in the treatment of our dead. Don't we find burning to be a sign of judgment in Scripture?



True that.


----------



## Confessor

So what are the official arguments against cremation?

(1) It is an attack on the body and is wrong for the same reason mutilation and murder are wrong.
(2) Fire is a sign of judgment.

Are these accurate? And are there any more?


----------



## Tripel

Confessor said:


> So what are the official arguments against cremation?
> 
> (1) It is an attack on the body and is wrong for the same reason mutilation and murder are wrong.
> (2) Fire is a sign of judgment.
> 
> Are these accurate? And are there any more?



(3) The church, historically, has never been about the business of burning bodies. This is a fairly recent practice.


----------



## Romans922

Christ was buried.


----------



## Whitefield

Romans922 said:


> Christ was buried.



Actually he was entombed.


----------



## Christusregnat

Whitefield said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ was buried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he was entombed.
Click to expand...


No, no, no, he went 6-feet under!!!


----------



## Peairtach

Christusregnat said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human body must in some sense be suitable to express God's Image. God in Christ has a human body (and soul) for eternity - albeit a glorified human body.
> 
> The human body can't be a divine "after-thought", speaking reverently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. If the body expresses God's image, then God must have a body. God in Christ has a body, but that is part of His unconfused human nature.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


The human body is an appropriate "vehicle" through which to express God's Image. If not, it means that Christ and His people are forever in an inappropriate "vehicle".

*Quote from Whitefield*
_Indeed, if Christ already has a body why did he have to take on another (incarnation)? 
_
Christ in His pre-incarnate state didn't have a human soul and body. But the plan from all eternity was that He would have a human soul and body, to show forth God's glory in the Image of God.

(4) Cremation is an ungodly return to Paganism.

(5) Appropriate burial is more "envronmentally friendly"

(6) Our bodies remain mysteriously united to Christ, see the Confession.

(7) For some it may be viewed as an attempt to thwart the resurrection - sinful Man is that stupid in his blindness; and I would be the same apart from grace.

(8) Burial and entombment (for the well-off) were used throughout the Old and New Covenant periods by God's people. Where it talks of "burnings" for some of the Israelite kings, I believe that that was like a torchlight parade (?)

(9) Saul and Jonathan's bodies were burnt before being buried by God's people. Maybe this was because they were unclean, having been hanging in a Pagan temple (?)

(10) The Lord ensured that from the moment Jesus' spirit left His body, everything was done to take care of His body, reflecting the fact that His soul was at repose. Shouldn't we treat the human body, particularly those who have fallen asleep in Jesus, with like respect where possible?

Look also at the love and care with which John's disciples treated John's decapitated body.

I have attended cremations - because sometimes the law of charity takes precedence - but I don't like them and disapprove of the practice.


----------



## Confessor

Okay, so here are the 4 arguments we have so far:

(1) It is an attack on the body and is wrong for the same reason mutilation and murder are wrong.
(2) Fire is a sign of judgment.
(3) The church, historically, has never been about the business of burning bodies. This is a fairly recent practice.
(4) The Biblical example, including Christ's, is burial.

Given these arguments, I don't see the case very convincing:
(1) I don't really see how it is an attack on the body, at least any more than letting a body decay in a grave. To be consistent with this, we should give ample care to all human corpses -- letting them sit in a grave would be disrespectful to the body, right?
(2) I don't find this convincing, either. Would this make fireplaces wrong? Does the fact that fire can signify judgment mean the use of fire for a purpose other than signifying judgment is immoral?
(3) I'm not sure an argument from Church history will work for this one, unless it can be established that this is a crucial moral issue (e.g. abortion). If the Church has generally agreed on an issue which is not terribly important, then an appeal to Church history for that issue is weaker than otherwise.
(4) This is an argument from silence. It might imply that burial is preferable, but not that cremation is wrong.


----------



## Marrow Man

Tripel said:


> Good post. I wholeheartedly agree. One thing that the post doesn't flesh out is the use of fire in the treatment of our dead. Don't we find burning to be a sign of judgment in Scripture?



Generally speaking, this is correct. A possible exception may be Amos 6:10, which might be a reference to a mass burning of bodies after catastrophic deaths (which, however, are due to judgment!).

Below is an exegesis paper I wrote a year or so ago on Amos 2:1-3. The paper discusses the implications of this passage for the subject of cremation (beginning around p. 12). Also, there is another paper on the topic of cremation that discusses all the relevant Scriptural texts.


----------



## bookslover

This is a complete non-issue. My wife and I both plan to be cremated after our deaths.

In both burial and cremation, the end result is the same: the decomposition of the corpse. With cremation, you just get there a lot faster. This has no impact, of course, on God's ability to resurrect the body. He is perfectly capable of "putting you back together" whether you've been buried or cremated.

Biblically, this is part of the adiaphora - those things that are "indifferent," where the Scriptures have no comment one way or the other. In my opinion, you can't make a case either for or against it from the Bible.

As a practical matter, cremation is a lot less expensive than burial. For a lot of people, that's a major consideration.


----------



## TimV

Getting eaten by worms is a sign of judgment too, as in Herod's case. If one looks long enough one can find anything one wants.


----------



## OPC'n

I didn't read the article but it's hard when I only have my touch iPod to use right now. I find nothing wrong with cremation...that's my plan for myself. Many martyres were burned at the stake and God is able to raise them up with a glorified body on the last day.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I find this to be a total non-issue I recently cremated my grandmother partially due to economics and she is in an urn in our living room. Eventually she will be buried but if someone wants to chastise me for not doing so they can pay for the plot, casket and burial expenses so as to not bother their conscience  

Genesis(NKJV)
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Obviously a proper service is only fitting. But to make too much of the Flesh which either way gets destroyed is non-sense as long as you show your respects. People tend to go all out which is purely ridiculous. Time is best spent on the soul while the flesh is alive. I'd much rather see more effort placed on where the soul goes then quibbling on how the body is taken care of after the soul departs! 

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Knoxienne

Here's a great sermon called "Is Cremation a Christian Option?" It really nails it.

SermonAudio.com - Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church


----------



## LeeJUk

I find no real problem with it.

First of all this argument that it's just like "Murder" and mutilation is non-nonsensical.
Murder is murder because 1) it's motive, 2) it's killing a Living Person. Not because it damages the body. 

Fire is a sign of judgment...ok, but if your gonna use that reasoning our God is a consuming fire and fire is a symbol of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

We of course have Christ being put in a tomb, but he was also crucified so should we all go try and get crucified if were gonna take examples never meant to be used by the church from Christ?

I think this arguement against cremation is definetly going beyond what is written.


To also say that the church has always burried folk...well ok but doesn't really means its authoritative. I could say the catholic church has always done something and thats been around for much longer, but then were getting away from sola scriptura.


----------



## Peairtach

Cremation got going again in the nineteenth century when Christendom in the West started to weaken, with the impact of Enlightenment thinking in the West. If there was a revival of true Christianity, which there will be one day, this Pagan practice, associated with pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, modern-day Hindus and Auschwitz, will reduce to a small number and then cease.


----------



## Tripel

bookslover said:


> In both burial and cremation, the end result is the same: the decomposition of the corpse. With cremation, you just get there a lot faster. This has no impact, of course, on God's ability to resurrect the body. He is perfectly capable of "putting you back together" whether you've been buried or cremated.





TranZ4MR said:


> Many martyres were burned at the stake and God is able to raise them up with a glorified body on the last day.



Has anyone argued against cremation in that it makes it difficult for for God to resurrect the body??? I don't think so. This issue is NOT about God's ability to raise the dead. This is about the nature of the body. 

The body is good. We are to treat it with respect. To burn a body suggests that it is no longer good, that it is inferior.

I don't know how you can just shrug off the historic church's practice of burial. It is disappointing that some think convenience or financial cost is a good enough reason to destroy the body.


----------



## Albatross

On the Heidelblog, the author mentioned Paul's reference to planting a seed and the imagery that is associated to planting a body. He then says, "For one thing, the imagery is not the same at all."

Is a goal of reading and applying the Bible to maintain the imagery that is often used?


----------



## Rich Koster

I know that the reformers who were burnt will not suffer any loss in the resurrection.


----------



## Tripel

Rich Koster said:


> I know that the reformers who were burnt will not suffer any loss in the resurrection.



It's not about loss in the resurrection. I am not concerned with how the pagans treat their own bodies and the bodies of the martyrs.

And I'll admit, it was a glorious death for the martyrs. But I guarantee you those same reformers would have been furious at the thought of dying of "natural causes" and having their family and church burn their bodies.


----------



## TimV

> I don't know how you can just shrug off the historic church's practice of burial. It is disappointing that some think convenience or financial cost is a good enough reason to destroy the body.



You should shrug off any powerful witness. Still, I would ask yourself what God's law says about the subject. Ask yourself how many (a hundred? two hundred) of God's law people around you shrug off as being irrelevant or out of date. And some are! For sure. But I find it odd when someone is strident about, say, claiming tattoos are morally neutral, when the Bible speaks specifically to them, and they are specifically dealing with the body. In fact, the reason modern observant Jews don't get them is that they say their bodies are on loan. But when it comes to something that isn't directly dealt with like the form of burial sometimes those same people get passionate!


----------



## Peairtach

TimV said:


> I don't know how you can just shrug off the historic church's practice of burial. It is disappointing that some think convenience or financial cost is a good enough reason to destroy the body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should shrug off any powerful witness. Still, I would ask yourself what God's law says about the subject. Ask yourself how many (a hundred? two hundred) of God's law people around you shrug off as being irrelevant or out of date. And some are! For sure. But I find it odd when someone is strident about, say, claiming tattoos are morally neutral, when the Bible speaks specifically to them, and they are specifically dealing with the body. In fact, the reason modern observant Jews don't get them is that they say their bodies are on loan. But when it comes to something that isn't directly dealt with like the form of burial sometimes those same people get passionate!
Click to expand...



_In fact, the reason modern observant Jews don't get them is that they say their bodies are on loan._ 

This is another good argument against tats. Our bodies are still on loan when we die,also. They are put by God into the care of our relatives and friends. We believe from the consistent example of the church in the Bible, that it is not God's will that the Pagan practice of burning be followed - or e.g. plastinisation and put on tour, by mad German professor Gunter von Hagens - but burial or entombment. The body must be treated with respect whether the soul is there or not.

But this again challenges us regarding gnostic behaviour in this life also, not just tats, but e.g. also gluttony and lack of exercise. If we are to respect the body when it's dead, how much more so when it's alive!!


----------



## Tripel

TimV said:


> But I find it odd when someone is strident about, say, claiming tattoos are morally neutral, when the Bible speaks specifically to them, and they are specifically dealing with the body.



Yes, the Bible does speak specifically to tattoos, but I understand the Lev passage to be a very specific form of tattooing, not the body art we often see today.

I see tattooing and cremation to be totally different. One is (or can be) a way to decorate or bring beauty to the body, the other is complete destruction of the body. I consider tattooing to be in the same category as piercings, hair styling, cosmetic surgery, etc. All can be used as an outworking of sin, but they are not in and of themselves sinful.

I don't think burning the body is morally neutral.


----------



## Albatross

Tripel said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I find it odd when someone is strident about, say, claiming tattoos are morally neutral, when the Bible speaks specifically to them, and they are specifically dealing with the body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bible does speak specifically to tattoos, but I understand the Lev passage to be a very specific form of tattooing, not the body art we often see today.
> 
> I see tattooing and cremation to be totally different. One is (or can be) a way to decorate or bring beauty to the body, the other is complete destruction of the body. I consider tattooing to be in the same category as piercings, hair styling, cosmetic surgery, etc. All can be used as an outworking of sin, but they are not in and of themselves sinful.
> 
> I don't think burning the body is morally neutral.
Click to expand...


What form of tattooing do you think Lev refers to?


----------



## Tripel

Albatross said:


> What form of tattooing do you think Lev refers to?



It appears to be some sort of pagan ritual or marking associated in false religion.


----------



## Marrow Man

Tripel said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I But I guarantee you those same reformers would have been furious at the thought of dying of "natural causes" and having their family and church burn their bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this gem -- not only having the body cremated, but having having the ashes then scattered on church property? Do you think anyone of old might have a problem with that as well?
> 
> One of the Patristic Fathers (Tertullian, I think) dealt with the question of what would happen to a Christian if he were eaten by cannibals (from a strictly material standpoint, a situation "worse" than cremation). Would this somehow invalidate the promise of the resurrection? Of course not. But even if it is a glorious thing to die for the cause of Christ, just because Papists and and heathen choose to dispose of the body in such a fashion, that does not mean that it therefore becomes a valid option for the Christian.
Click to expand...


----------



## ewenlin

Where I am you are only allowed to be buried for 15 years before the big brother comes and dig you up to be cremated...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Singapore#Burial
What should I do then?


----------



## Confessor

Sorry Richard, I never noticed your post you made a while ago in which you listed out more arguments. I'll get to that later, when I have more time.


----------



## Marrow Man

ewenlin said:


> Where I am you are only allowed to be buried for 15 years before the big brother comes and dig you up to be cremated...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Singapore#Burial
> What should I do then?





Be buried anyway. You cannot control what someone may do to the body after death.

In (some places) in this country, my understanding is that the state requires individuals to have their organs liquidified and then drained/sucked out of them prior to preservation. This to me seems to be a great desecration of the body. But I may also be operating on faulty information. Does anyone know all of what the embalming process entails?


----------



## Hippo

I have always seen burial as a practice associated with our sure and certain hope of a bodily resurrection, cremation is all very Gnostic (or more precisely dualistic) to me. A physical burial is a witness to our hope and our hope has to be physical.

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 

(1 Co 15:16-19)


----------



## Montanablue

What about people who honestly can't afford a cost of a burial? Is it a sin for them to be cremated? (This is a bit of a rhetorical question - I don't think cremation is necessarily a sin, although burial is probably more reflective of biblical principles). Cost is a legitimate concern for many. Burial is horribly expensive. I know some will say that the church should then step in and cover burial costs, but I'm not sure that's the wisest use of (often tight) church budgets. Thoughts?


----------



## Tripel

Kathleen,
That's a good question. I have never had to pay for a burial, so I don't know what the actual costs are. Are there not inexpensive ways to do it? Is it impossible to get a cheap place to bury someone? I realize some memorial parks can be expensive, but it is not necessary to be burried in such expensive places. 

What's important is that the bodies are burried. What's not important is the particular grave location or the type of casket. I haven't done this, but I bet a quick Google search can find you a dirt cheap wooden box.


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> (4) Cremation is an ungodly return to Paganism.
> 
> (5) Appropriate burial is more "envronmentally friendly"
> 
> (6) Our bodies remain mysteriously united to Christ, see the Confession.
> 
> (7) For some it may be viewed as an attempt to thwart the resurrection - sinful Man is that stupid in his blindness; and I would be the same apart from grace.
> 
> (8) Burial and entombment (for the well-off) were used throughout the Old and New Covenant periods by God's people. Where it talks of "burnings" for some of the Israelite kings, I believe that that was like a torchlight parade (?)
> 
> (9) Saul and Jonathan's bodies were burnt before being buried by God's people. Maybe this was because they were unclean, having been hanging in a Pagan temple (?)
> 
> (10) The Lord ensured that from the moment Jesus' spirit left His body, everything was done to take care of His body, reflecting the fact that His soul was at repose. Shouldn't we treat the human body, particularly those who have fallen asleep in Jesus, with like respect where possible?



(4) This begs the question. Whether or not cremation is ungodly is the point in dispute.
(5) Not a moral issue.
(6) The only thing in the WCF close to our bodies' being united with Christ, if I am not mistaken, is found in 26.1, but that says nothing about our bodies: "_All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory_."
(7) Misuse does not nullify proper use.
(8) I do not understand how this implies the immorality of cremation.
(9) Maybe. But, again, this falls short of implying the immorality of cremation.
(10) We should treat bodies with respect, but to say that cremation doesn't is a _petitio principii_.

If the reason against cremation is out of respect for bodies, then it needs to be proved that cremation is intrinsically disrespectful; also, people arguing with this rationale would need to avoid the logical implication that we need to protect the body from as much decay as possible.


----------



## Tripel

Confessor said:


> also, people arguing with this rationale would need to avoid the logical implication that we need to protect the body from as much decay as possible.



No. There is a big difference between allowing decay to happen and intentionally destroying the body.


----------



## Confessor

Tripel said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, people arguing with this rationale would need to avoid the logical implication that we need to protect the body from as much decay as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is a big difference between allowing decay to happen and intentionally destroying the body.
Click to expand...


If the rationale for not cremating is because we ought to respect the body, then why are we not obliged to respect the body by preventing decay at all costs?

You'd think it's wrong if someone left a corpse alone, right? So the passive/active distinction doesn't help the anti-cremation argument.


----------



## Montanablue

Tripel said:


> Kathleen,
> That's a good question. I have never had to pay for a burial, so I don't know what the actual costs are. Are there not inexpensive ways to do it? Is it impossible to get a cheap place to bury someone? I realize some memorial parks can be expensive, but it is not necessary to be burried in such expensive places.
> 
> What's important is that the bodies are burried. What's not important is the particular grave location or the type of casket. I haven't done this, but I bet a quick Google search can find you a dirt cheap wooden box.



I don't know all of the particulars (having never been directly involved in planning a funeral), but it can get quite pricey, even if you try to do it cheaply. My father has a small life insurance policy on me and each of my siblings just to pay for funeral and burial costs. I think what is most expensive is the coffin, because it usually has to conform to some sort of health code (which, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing especially if you are burying somewhere that has a high water table). 

I did some googling to satisfy my curiosity and it appears that most inexpensive caskets cost in the neighborhood of $2000. It also looks like cost would vary hugely by state since some states don't seem to have many casket regulations and others seem to have fairly strict rules. 

I do agree that the act of burying is what's important - not how nice the casket is or if you have a fancy hearse with a flower car following it - but it still seems that at least in some locales, a simple burial might be prohibitively expensive for some.


----------



## Tripel

Confessor said:


> If the rationale for not cremating is because we ought to respect the body, then why are we not obliged to respect the body by preventing decay at all costs?
> 
> You'd think it's wrong if someone left a corpse alone, right? So the passive/active distinction doesn't help the anti-cremation argument.



First of all, respecting the body does not necessitate preserving the body. It is not up to us to keep the body in the best possible condition while we await the resurrection. But it is also not up to intentionally destroy that which is good.

Second, respect for the body is not the sole reason we shouldn't bury. We've been over other reasons in this thread.


----------



## Confessor

Tripel said:


> First of all, respecting the body does not necessitate preserving the body. It is not up to us to keep the body in the best possible condition while we await the resurrection. But it is also not up to intentionally destroy that which is good.
> 
> Second, respect for the body is not the sole reason we shouldn't bury. We've been over other reasons in this thread.



I know, but how do you draw the line non-arbitrarily? You can't outright state that cremation is dishonoring without begging the question, and, moreover, if you want to reject cremation as dishonoring, then there's no reason why someone else can't retort that mere burial sans maximum preservation is dishonoring.

I know it's not the only reason, but I still think it is not a good one.


----------



## Tripel

Montanablue said:


> I did some googling to satisfy my curiosity and it appears that most inexpensive caskets cost in the neighborhood of $2000. It also looks like cost would vary hugely by state since some states don't seem to have many casket regulations and others seem to have fairly strict rules.



I did a quick search as well and found some as low as $150. Also, if funds were limited and I had to deal with a deceased family member, I wouldn't hesitate to bury them across state lines or in a rural area where regulations are few.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Ben*
_6) The only thing in the WCF close to our bodies' being united with Christ, if I am not mistaken, is found in 26.1, but that says nothing about our bodies: "All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory."_

Wrong  Is it theology you're studying Ben? You'll have to revise the WSC.

Q. 37. What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death?

A. The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves, till the resurrection

Citing interestingly I Thess. 4:14 and Isaiah 57:2 among other texts.

Q. 86 of the Larger Catechism is even fuller.

If the diaconate were operating properly, the church would make provision for the Christian burial of poor brothers and sisters, among other things like health, education and welfare.

Cremation is unbiblical and unconfessional, and brothers and sisters should be encouraged to avoid it, and instead opt for Christian burial, burial at sea (for Christian seafarers if they wish) or entombment.


----------



## Montanablue

Tripel said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did some googling to satisfy my curiosity and it appears that most inexpensive caskets cost in the neighborhood of $2000. It also looks like cost would vary hugely by state since some states don't seem to have many casket regulations and others seem to have fairly strict rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a quick search as well and found some as low as $150. Also, if funds were limited and I had to deal with a deceased family member, I wouldn't hesitate to bury them across state lines or in a rural area where regulations are few.
Click to expand...


Oh, interesting. I actually asked a co-worker about this, and she said that what makes the costs go up is if you are required to buy your casket from a "licensed provider" ie a funeral home. So, in some places, you can get really cheap caskets - often online - while in others you have to go through a funeral home which is really expensive. So, it seems like someone's best bet would be to do as you suggest and perhaps look into burial farther away if one's own region is expensive or has lots of regulations.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Tripel or Daniel,
Wait until your in the situation and have to deal with expenses before you pass judgment its one thing to be on the outside looking in then being in it yourself. Here costs are astronomical. Cremation as I recently did with my grandmother was the best route. My grandmother would not want her family to go in debt over this issue. We had a close family friend who wanted us to take out a $50,000 dollar loan to do burial. Uh no. Once the body is in the ground you never see the casket or body again. 

I think this is the last issue a Christian should give another brother or sister grief over. Especially when their grieving as I still am. I say leave it up to a choice of liberty just be respectful with whichever way you choose to go about handling the remains of a loved one. Frankly it's no one's business to demand one way or another except by those placed in the charge of this duty.

Respectfully,
Blade

-----Added 8/14/2009 at 05:00:41 EST-----

Tallach,
My situation might be better off if the church I am a member of actually cared about what you stated in your post. So I'm left with little options. 

blade


----------



## Romans922

*This is easy people:*

Are there any cases of bodies being buried in Scripture? Where?

Are there any cases of bodies being burned to ashes in Scripture? Where?


----------



## A guy

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Ben*
> _
> Cremation is unbiblical _


_

What is the biblical proof for this?_


----------



## Bladestunner316

There is none. Traditionally people have been buried. But some want to make it Law that we have to bury. Well sometimes you can't due to circumstances. I believe as long as we respect the dead whichever method we choose then that is fine.


----------



## Zenas

Seems to be a question of liberty.


----------



## Marrow Man

Montanablue said:


> What about people who honestly can't afford a cost of a burial? Is it a sin for them to be cremated? (This is a bit of a rhetorical question - I don't think cremation is necessarily a sin, although burial is probably more reflective of biblical principles). Cost is a legitimate concern for many. Burial is horribly expensive. I know some will say that the church should then step in and cover burial costs, but I'm not sure that's the wisest use of (often tight) church budgets. Thoughts?



This is a great question and concern. From my limited experience, having buried my father and having been a pastor for only a few years, burials just about have to be one of the biggest "unavoidable" (in that everyone dies) ripoffs in existence today. And while there aren't easy, simple answers to this (except for the $150 caskets mentioned above!), I have a few thoughts for pastors and family members.

1) It would be great if family members of the deceased would get in touch with the pastor as soon as possible after the passing. This has never happened in my pastorate, and it is one of the most frustrating things out there. If I were called, I would gladly walk through the entire procedure with the family. I can be more neutral in the decisions, thus being a "voice of reason" when the funeral director tries the high pressure sales gimmicks. But, in my limited experience, the pastor is the LAST ONE who gets called, almost as an afterthought in the entire process.

2) One way (and it's only a small way) to keep down costs is for pastors not to take an honorarium when preaching the funeral of a member. I know that all will not agree with me here, but I've always viewed it as "part of the job." I don't charge members to show up at their side at the emergency room in the middle of the night; why would I do this differently for a funeral? This is one of those little things that could be avoided if families would call me before talking to the funeral home director. As such, the funeral home already has a check cut in my name before I am even contacted.

3) All of this goes to something Clark says in the article -- we need to be prepared for death. Services can be prepared in advance. Costs can be budgeted and secured in advance. Money can be budgeted/saved so as not to be a burden on the family, etc.

These are not easy answers by any stretch, but it's something Christians need to consider.


----------



## TimV

Great thoughts, Pastor T.


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> Q. 37. What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death?
> 
> A. The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves, till the resurrection
> 
> Citing interestingly I Thess. 4:14 and Isaiah 57:2 among other texts.



How does that catechism answer or those verses imply that cremation is _immoral_?

It seems you're reading into the text.



> Wrong Is it theology you're studying Ben? You'll have to revise the WSC.



To be fair, you did say that it was in the Confession. If nothing else, it was not clear that I ought to have checked the catechisms.

And no, I'm not studying theology. Haven't taken a single class.


----------



## Tripel

Bladestunner316 said:


> Tripel or Daniel,
> Wait until your in the situation and have to deal with expenses before you pass judgment its one thing to be on the outside looking in then being in it yourself.



Why do I have to be in the situation myself in order to call something right or wrong? Does that apply to all situations?



> Here costs are astronomical.



I don't doubt costs are astronomical where you are. But like I mentioned before, do the costs of something determine whether it is right or wrong?



> Cremation as I recently did with my grandmother was the best route. My grandmother would not want her family to go in debt over this issue. We had a close family friend who wanted us to take out a $50,000 dollar loan to do burial. Uh no. Once the body is in the ground you never see the casket or body again.



Thank you for not spending $50k on her burial! I agree that is a waste. I just have a hard time believing that it is impossible these days to get a pine box and bury someone in a cheap, minimally-regulated region. I'm not saying it's easy...just that it's possible.



> I think this is the last issue a Christian should give another brother or sister grief over. Especially when their grieving as I still am. I say leave it up to a choice of liberty just be respectful with whichever way you choose to go about handling the remains of a loved one. Frankly it's no one's business to demand one way or another except by those placed in the charge of this duty.



Blade, it is not my intention to give you grief. This is the theological forum and we are discussing the implications of burial vs. cremation. How is it possible to have a theological discussion on a matter without somebody saying that one method is more in line with Scripture? 

I am arguing my case because it's a theological issue, therefore a very important issue. To me, it is like the many debates that have occurred regarding the Sabbath. Some people on this board hold very strict views on the Sabbath and they believe their views to be Scriptural. It's a serious issue, but is one that many Christians do not give a second thought. I think of this as the same.


----------



## SRoper

Burial, cremation, throwing the body to wild animals, cannibalism ... what's done to the body after death is all indifferent, right?


----------



## Bladestunner316

Daniel,
You have no clue on the costs for burial in my region. Also you can pass judgment on any issue you want by all means do so. But understand passing judgment and being actually involved are two different things. Your lack of experience in this area says this. If you knew what it is like to experience this situation as I and countless others have then you would have a better understanding. 

My advice:

1.) Do as the loved one has requested with their body after they have departed.

2.) Be respectful in the dispensing of this however the loved one has decreed.

3.) Uphold your convictions but don't judge another for doing the same.

4.) Don't go overboard with money and deal with it withing your budget. 

5.) I wish we had more planning in this regard we are suffering in many way's do to this. Sadly most people do because they don't want to think about death. Period and most don't. 

Tim or Marrow Man,
Sadly I went to MY pastor before she passed asked him to visit he said he would. He never showed up or called. He said he would do the funeral as my grandmother requested and never called to set up arrangements. Most pastor's it seem's in this area don't want to be involved unless your a member of their church. I guess it's not good enough that your a believer in need. Thankfully the Lutheran church assisted and we had a nice memorial service. 

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Brian Withnell

Christusregnat said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human body must in some sense be suitable to express God's Image. God in Christ has a human body (and soul) for eternity - albeit a glorified human body.
> 
> The human body can't be a divine "after-thought", speaking reverently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. If the body expresses God's image, then God must have a body. God in Christ has a body, but that is part of His unconfused human nature.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Before the fall, man had a body, and was untainted in his reflection of God. While God does not have a body, our body cannot be part of the corruption of the image (at least not any more than any other part of our nature). So our bodies could in some way (that we do not see) reflect the image of God.

That being said, I found the article unsatisfying. Just because something used to be done, does not mean that it ought to be done. I know of no teaching on the subject of burial. That a body would be cremated and then planted (or even scattered like seed) does not seem to contradict anything I've read in scripture. Those that have died in fires and have had their bodies destroyed are no less going to be raised (either to life or to judgment). The resurrection is more sure than the sun rising in the morning ... when the sun no longer rises, the resurrection of the dead will have occurred.

One is no less secure in Christ because one's body was turned to ash after death than those who are embalmed and their bodies preserved for 1000 years. Those outside of Christ are no less vulnerable because their bodies are burned and cast to the wind than those that are buried.

Personally, I have always (jokingly) threatened my wife that if she dies before I do that I will have her cremated and her ashes spread on the Washington Beltway (I've buried my share of spouses, now it is her turn!)


----------



## Tripel

Brian Withnell said:


> Those that have died in fires and have had their bodies destroyed are no less going to be raised (either to life or to judgment). The resurrection is more sure than the sun rising in the morning ... when the sun no longer rises, the resurrection of the dead will have occurred.
> 
> One is no less secure in Christ because one's body was turned to ash after death than those who are embalmed and their bodies preserved for 1000 years. Those outside of Christ are no less vulnerable because their bodies are burned and cast to the wind than those that are buried.



Once again, I'm not aware of anyone arguing against cremation on the grounds that it somehow affects the resurrection. We are ALL in agreement that the Lord will raise the dead, regardless of how the body was treated.
That is not the issue.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Marrow Man said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post. I wholeheartedly agree. One thing that the post doesn't flesh out is the use of fire in the treatment of our dead. Don't we find burning to be a sign of judgment in Scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, this is correct. A possible exception may be Amos 6:10, which might be a reference to a mass burning of bodies after catastrophic deaths (which, however, are due to judgment!).
> 
> Below is an exegesis paper I wrote a year or so ago on Amos 2:1-3. The paper discusses the implications of this passage for the subject of cremation (beginning around p. 12). Also, there is another paper on the topic of cremation that discusses all the relevant Scriptural texts.
Click to expand...


Tim,

I was hoping that somewhere in your paper on cremation you would have found mention of some prohibition of cremation. When in your conclusion you start with asking the question is there justification for cremation, I think you were asking the wrong question. If there is no condemnation for cremation, then it is left to liberty. If this were so important an issue, would it not have some verse of condemnation in didactic teaching? Even in the case you sited of Moab being judged for burning a body, it might easily be argued that it wasn't that the body was burned, but that the body was purposely desecrated. Much like someone can offend with words that are not offensive in themselves, if the intent is to offend.

I would think that there should be something of positive argument if we are going to say that such a practice is not within liberty. From a logical point of view, it only takes a single counter-example to prove a premise false. If the premise is "cremation is not appropriate for honoring the dead" then the example of Saul and his sons would prove that particular premise false (especially if all we have is exemplars for evidence).

Just as your view of fire as being indicative of judgment, I would point to the counter example of the Spirit descending on the disciples "as tongues of flame" (Acts 2). In another example of looking at something that is more often looked at as sin, leaven can either be sin, or the growth of the kingdom. I do not see that the use of a physical element of the creation as a universal symbol of anything within the realm of the spiritual life of believers.

This seems particularly distressing in that we (reformed folk) tend to shun the idea of theology from examples only. It seems to me that the only conclusion we could draw is that there appear to be times and places where cremation was honorable, and times were it was meant to dishonor.

I am sure I can be taught on this, but please use didactic passages of scripture for the purpose. Historic passages that have no didactic "sidebar" included seem inappropriate for the establishment of doctrine.


----------



## bookslover

Tripel said:


> I don't know how you can just shrug off the historic church's practice of burial. It is disappointing that some think convenience or financial cost is a good enough reason to destroy the body.



As for "shrug[ging] off the historic church's practice" of burial, the issue is not the church's practice but what the Bible has to say. And, since the Bible takes no stance one way or the other regarding cremation (it's an "adiaphora" item), Christians are free to practice cremation.

As to "destroy[ing] the body," _the body is destroyed anyway_, in either burial or cremation. As I said before, cremation just gets you to the same place faster.

-----Added 8/14/2009 at 10:56:20 EST-----



SRoper said:


> Burial, cremation, throwing the body to wild animals, cannibalism ... what's done to the body after death is all indifferent, right?



I've read that, after their murders, both Paul's and Peter's bodies were most probably unceremoniously dumped into the Tiber River. Apparently, it was against Roman law to bury Christians in the regular cemetaries, and Christians would have put their own lives on the line had they dared to come forward to claim the bodies for burial themselves.


----------



## Marrow Man

Brian Withnell said:


> Tim,
> 
> I was hoping that somewhere in your paper on cremation you would have found mention of some prohibition of cremation. When in your conclusion you start with asking the question is there justification for cremation, I think you were asking the wrong question. If there is no condemnation for cremation, then it is left to liberty. If this were so important an issue, would it not have some verse of condemnation in didactic teaching? Even in the case you sited of Moab being judged for burning a body, it might easily be argued that it wasn't that the body was burned, but that the body was purposely desecrated. Much like someone can offend with words that are not offensive in themselves, if the intent is to offend.
> 
> I would think that there should be something of positive argument if we are going to say that such a practice is not within liberty. From a logical point of view, it only takes a single counter-example to prove a premise false. If the premise is "cremation is not appropriate for honoring the dead" then the example of Saul and his sons would prove that particular premise false (especially if all we have is exemplars for evidence).
> 
> Just as your view of fire as being indicative of judgment, I would point to the counter example of the Spirit descending on the disciples "as tongues of flame" (Acts 2). In another example of looking at something that is more often looked at as sin, leaven can either be sin, or the growth of the kingdom. I do not see that the use of a physical element of the creation as a universal symbol of anything within the realm of the spiritual life of believers.
> 
> This seems particularly distressing in that we (reformed folk) tend to shun the idea of theology from examples only. It seems to me that the only conclusion we could draw is that there appear to be times and places where cremation was honorable, and times were it was meant to dishonor.
> 
> I am sure I can be taught on this, but please use didactic passages of scripture for the purpose. Historic passages that have no didactic "sidebar" included seem inappropriate for the establishment of doctrine.



Brian, I appreciate the comments. They most helpful in seeing some of my shortcomings.

Please note two things: 1) This was an exegesis paper written for a class. I had spatial limitations, and cremation was not the focus of the paper (the passage itself was -- cremation was only a practical consideration of the text). 2) The additional paper I posted (not written by me) deals far more deeply with the issues involved. I suggest you give it a perusal as well to answer so more of those questions, if you have not done so already (he deals with far more texts, including possible negatives and positives). I also believe the author has written a longer paper (also a web-based PDF) where he goes into even more detail. I can post that to (or at least a link to it) if you like.

In dealing with the objections you have voiced:

1) We should not expect a didactic passage for every possible ethical situation in Scripture. While you are quite correct in that historical narratives are not necessarily used for the establishment of teaching principles (e.g., the book of Acts is an excellent example of this), the historical passages in Scripture offer more that simply a repeating of history. In other words, historical patterns, among other things, are one of the ways in which we are taught Godly wisdom through those patterns. Of course, this is where the analogy of Scripture must come in. For instance, Genesis 2 is an historical narrative which gives a didactic principle for marriage (one man/one woman; lifetime, etc.). This principle existed for more than millennia before the ministry of Jesus, but He points us to that purpose in Matthew 19. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by the "sidebar," but I believe it would suffice if I am understanding what you mean. I would say, though, that Amos 2 offers such a sidebar, since there is a direct pronouncement of judgment in that text.

2) You are incorrect, in this case, in the analysis of genre. While Amos 2 references an historical event, it is not an historical narrative. It is an utterance from the Lord given through His prophet (technical, an oracle of judgment).

3) The "tongues of fire" in Acts has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of cremation/burial. I fail to see how that is not a red herring. You are correct, however, in stating that fire is not always used negatively in Scripture (the leaven example being an excellent one), and if this is all you intended I would agree on that point.

4) I will reiterate that it is a faulty hermeneutic to insist upon a "thou shalt not ..." or "thou shall ..." passage in order to establish a positive/negative teaching and then attribute it to a matter of liberty otherwise. If that were the case, it would be a matter of liberty for women to come to the Lord's Table or Christians to worship on the Lord's Day, since those are not direct/explicit commands in Scripture. There are, however, general principles of Scripture that can be derived from the limited passages we have that would result in a basic ethical teaching that I would hope we would all agree: the body is to be treated with dignity and respect, and that view of the body continues even after death. That is certainly an application of the Amos text, unless one wants to defend the exhumation of a body in order to desecrate it after death -- the form of desecration in this case involving burning.

5) There is an historical (as well as Confessional, as has been mentioned above) aspect to this. Pagan cultures practiced cremation, Jews and early Christians practiced burial (or entombment). Burial looks positively toward the resurrection, whereas cremation does not. Cremation was practiced exactly twice in the history of this country (as I do reference in the paper) prior to the late 1800s, and in neither case for Christian reasons (once because of a phobia, the other pagan in nature). Although this is no way a determinative factor, this must be carefully weighed. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but Americans typically have a streak of western arrogance where we ignore history (or are ignorant of history) and come up with innovations and novelties that we think no one has considered before. Please note that I am not accusing you or anyone else on the PB of this. But this attitude filters down into our culture and permeates it, and sometimes Christians unwittingly pick up on it. This may or may not be true with folks on this issue.

Now, certainly the motivation behind the burning must be factored it. I gave the example of Amos 6 as being a case in which a widespread burning because of the number of bodies after a disaster might be acceptable. Certainly there are situations where burial might be a disrespectful desecration. And this is one way in which the insistence upon a didactic proof text might fall far short: I do not know of an instance (feel free to provide one, because this is off the top of my head) where there is a prohibition in Scripture against the chopping up of the body into parts after death and burying each of those individually. I would view that to be a desecration of the body and not left up to "Christian liberty." Likewise, if a parishioner told me that he wanted to have the head of his dear wife removed from the body and displayed in his house on the fireplace mantle, I would strongly discourage that as well. In each of these cases I cannot think of a "thou shalt not ..." passage, but I can point to the overarching testimony of Scriptures (the positive passages about burials, the promise of the resurrection, the negative view of bodily desecration) and establish a general principle of godly wisdom pointing to an ethical consideration that should be adopted in such a situation.


----------



## Peairtach

*Westminster Larger Catechism*
_Q. 86. What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?

A. The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ,and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day._

Texts cited:-

Romans 8:23, in particular... "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" 

Is cremation an action that comports with those who are waiting for the adoption and redemption of the body?

Psalm 16:2, in particular... "my flesh also shall rest in hope."

Is cremation an action that comports with those who believe that the body rests in the hope of the resurrection?

I Thess. 4:14, in particular......"which sleep in Jesus"

Is cremation an action that comports with those who believe that their brother or sisters' body sleeps in Jesus?

Isaiah 57:2, in particular........" they shall rest in their beds"

Is cremation an action that comports with those who believe that the bodies
of departed brothers and sisters lie in the grave, as those that rest in their beds?

*Isaiah 57:1-3:*
_The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness. But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. 
_

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 08:28:18 EST-----



SRoper said:


> Burial, cremation, throwing the body to wild animals, cannibalism ... what's done to the body after death is all indifferent, right?



Or follow the Parsees and put the body out for the vultures


----------



## py3ak

Or you could always donate your body to science, and let them foot the cost for disposing of whatever is left.

I can understand a Christian desiring to "plant" their loved one's remains in the hope of a glorious resurrection. And I believe 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3 make the promise that our bodies will be conformed to the image of the perfect humanity of Christ, that is, will be glorified according to the pattern of His glorification.

But it seems to me that _requiring_ burial at all costs or in any circumstances is unnecessary, and could be a very harsh thing to do. Treating the dead with respect is one way we manifest our hope in the resurrection, but we are also called upon to be wise stewards, and it seems to me far more clear that we will be a little tongue-tied at the day of judgment over decking out tombs in marble and precious metals while our neighbors lived in shanties with roofs of corrugated asbestos.

After all, while the rich man was buried, Lazarus was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom: and Paul thought of giving his body to be burned as a praiseworthy thing to do, even if it was meaningless without love.


----------



## Confessor

Richard, you're reading way too much into how the Bible describes the dead. The fact that the Bible often refers to our dead bodies as "waiting" or "sleeping" or "resting" does not necessitate at all that cremation is immoral. Many OT saints' bodies have probably decayed to a very large degree by this point; does that mean that those who dealt with their bodies did a wrong thing?

If cremation were truly unconfessional, you would think that it would be more explicit in the Standards. Saying that it mentions bodies that "rest in their graves as in their beds" does not imply that it teaches the immorality of cremation.


----------



## Peairtach

Neither I nor the standards said that cremation was immoral.

Both indicate that the deliberate destruction of the body is a strange way of acting by those who have a resurrection hope. Interesting how cremation has become more popular and acceptable as the age has become more godless.

Burial doesn't involve the deliberate destruction of the body by human beings. Instead the body is put into the care of Providence acting through Nature. Let Him do what He will with His charge of the body, which is still united to Christ, until the resurrection.

In the last post I was just citing the Larger catechism, and the associated texts. Maybe the Divines were taking this matter too seriously?


----------



## Marrow Man

One of the reasons that cremation is not mentioned in the WCF is the the current popularity of the practice is an historical novelty of sorts. It's not that cremation was "unheard of" (certainly it was a practice known in paganism), but it was not considered to be a viable Christian option (for lack of a better word, it was assumed to be the "default" Christian position). The Scriptures seem to speak of it this way, and the overwhelming evidence of Christian history (prior to the last century or so) bears witness to this.

By way of analogy, the Confession makes use of no explicit language condemning the use of praise bands or drama in worship, yet these are (rightly so, In my humble opinion) seen as violations of the RPW. A few thoughts: since funeral services are considered worship services in nature, should they not be under the authority of the RPW? And if so, would cremation be considered to be a violation of the RPW? If not, why not?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Have we mentioned the American church's penchant for closet Gnosticism yet? To me, this seems to be most of the impetus for our latest fad of burning the dead.


----------



## mvdm

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Have we mentioned the American church's penchant for closet Gnosticism yet? To me, this seems to be most of the impetus for our latest fad of burning the dead.



Yes, I mentioned the gnostic root of cremation in my laudatory comment on Scott's blog. 

And I also mentioned the flip-side concern touched on by Rueben above: that our current expensive/cosmetic burial practices may very well be out of line.


----------



## py3ak

Marrow Man said:


> One of the reasons that cremation is not mentioned in the WCF is the the current popularity of the practice is an historical novelty of sorts. It's not that cremation was "unheard of" (certainly it was a practice known in paganism), but it was not considered to be a viable Christian option (for lack of a better word, it was assumed to be the "default" Christian position). The Scriptures seem to speak of it this way, and the overwhelming evidence of Christian history (prior to the last century or so) bears witness to this.
> 
> By way of analogy, the Confession makes use of no explicit language condemning the use of praise bands or drama in worship, yet these are (rightly so, In my humble opinion) seen as violations of the RPW. A few thoughts: since funeral services are considered worship services in nature, should they not be under the authority of the RPW? And if so, would cremation be considered to be a violation of the RPW? If not, why not?



Is it not true that many adherents of the WCF explicitly distanced themselves from conceiving of funerals as any kind of worship service?


----------



## Marrow Man

py3ak said:


> Is it not true that many adherents of the WCF explicitly distanced themselves from conceiving of funerals as any kind of worship service?



That may be true, but I do not know for certain and would be interesting in knowing the answer (e.g., perhaps considering what the Westminster Directory of Public Worship says on this matter). The DPW was never adopted by the ARP and is not a part of our standards. However, our own Directory of Worship states:



> In the presence of death, Christians witness to their faith that
> God, in Jesus Christ, has conquered death and raises His
> people from death to life eternal. In order that those who are
> bereaved may find strength and comfort in the presence of
> God, and support from the people of God, it is appropriate
> that a service of worship be held. When a service of worship
> is held, it should be conducted by a minister and shall be
> under the authority of the minister and the session. A service
> held in a church provides the best setting for turning the
> hearts of those bereaved to the comfort of God to be found
> in Christ, but circumstances may suggest another setting.



So, at least in certain circumstances, my own denomination's stance is that a funeral service _can be_ a worship service. I would be interested to see how other Reformed denominations view this.


----------



## py3ak

I know I've read something about it, but we might have to wait for Paul or Chris to get on with a bibliographical reference.


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> Neither I nor the standards said that cremation was immoral.



Then why are you arguing against it?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Richard Tallach said:


> Both indicate that the deliberate destruction of the body is a strange way of acting by those who have a resurrection hope.



First, energy cannot be either created or destroyed (by a creature, I am not talking about creation here, upon which we all agree). And because E=MC^2, that is Energy is the equivalent of mass times the square of the speed of light, and mass is matter, then matter cannot be destroyed. You cannot destroy the body ... it is not possible. This is of great comfort to those who have had loved ones who have died at sea. There bodies are "destroyed" in the sense that they became "fish food" and were consumed. So all of the items which which it is asked "does that comport with resting" I would say without hesitation, yes.

From the perspective I would hold, the sin or lack thereof would be not in what physically is done, but in what was intended. Even as Saul and his sons were burned before they were buried (1 Sam 31:12) which is called kindness (1 Sam 2:5) so at least in this case it was a kindness ... which is without explanation, so _any reasoning on our part would be conjecture_. Because we don't know the reason this would be kindness, it would appear that cremation, at least in this case, was honoring the dead. (Again, the single counter example proves a conjecture incorrect)

Tim, thanks for the reply. I believe I understand the reasoning, and of course not everything that we hold has to be from didactic, we hold to a trinity because we see it clearly taught (seeing the Father, Son, and Spirit all in a single passage interacting such as at the baptism of Jesus gives us a position that God exists in three persons, while we have God is one in being from other sections of scripture) so of course we can deduce things from narrative. I just don't see this as perfectly consistent within the scripture. If the intent is to disgrace the body, nearly anything one does would accomplish that goal. If the intent is to honor the body, it would be hard not to honor the body. The eventual resurrection is going to be accomplished even for those that thousands of years ago decayed into dust (or were scattered by fish as they died in the sea).

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 07:57:35 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> 1) It would be great if family members of the deceased would get in touch with the pastor as soon as possible after the passing. This has never happened in my pastorate, and it is one of the most frustrating things out there. If I were called, I would gladly walk through the entire procedure with the family. I can be more neutral in the decisions, thus being a "voice of reason" when the funeral director tries the high pressure sales gimmicks. But, in my limited experience, the pastor is the LAST ONE who gets called, almost as an afterthought in the entire process.



I'm frankly amazed. When my first wife died, the first person I called (after family) was the pastor. Why call the funeral home yourself in any case? When Debbie died, I call the pastor, he called the deacons, they contacted the funeral home to come for the body.

I cannot see any situation in which I would not have contacted the pastor before anyone else other than family when such things happen. I call the pastor when someone is hurt or sick (or having a child) so why would I not include my best and closest friend when someone in the family dies? Perhaps it is strange that my pastor is my best and closest friend ... I don't think so. Not only is he a spiritual leader for the church, but he is closer than most of my family.

BTW, I fully agree with you on pastors should probably not charge for funerals (or weddings for that matter) when it is a member of the church. I know my pastor does not charge for either. But then, I have the best pastor this side of heaven.


----------



## Peairtach

Confessor said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither I nor the standards said that cremation was immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you arguing against it?
Click to expand...


The word immoral is a bit strong; the biblical example of burial or entombment, and the fact that our bodies are going to be raised, means that those Christians who opt for cremation - and I understand the money worries of some in this connection - are being inconsistent with the example of the biblical saints, and are being inconsistent with the doctrine of the resurrection, and to that extent are going with the flow of humanist culture. When there is the revival we believe will happen, that affects culture and all things, the practice of cremation will disappear like snaw off a dyke in the morning sun.

Cremation, being a (another) symptom of a paganised culture, will become unfashionable again, before the light of the Gospel, transforming people's hearts and lives.

The symbolism of cremation is the symbolism of a sub-Christian culture.


----------



## Marrow Man

Brian Withnell said:


> I'm frankly amazed. When my first wife died, the first person I called (after family) was the pastor. Why call the funeral home yourself in any case? When Debbie died, I call the pastor, he called the deacons, they contacted the funeral home to come for the body.
> 
> I cannot see any situation in which I would not have contacted the pastor before anyone else other than family when such things happen. ...



Well, to be fair, I have exactly run across the same situation you describe here. At my first pastorate, I did not have a single death in the 2.5 years I was there (which was amazing, as there were lots of elderly folks, and one lady -- homebound -- was over 100!). Since coming here, I have had a few. Once I was asked to do a graveside for an infant; the parents were not churchgoing, but the great grandmother attends our church and asked me to do it. Two weeks later, an older man in the church died; I had only been here about a month when this happened, had only met him once or twice, and his children did not know me at all. I was the last person contacted, and it was the funeral home that did so. Since then, we have had two regular church members pass. One lady's husband was not a believer (and also nominal RC), so when she died, he simply turned over all the arrangements to her sister who lived over an hour away. They decided to have the service in their church with their pastor, with me and the former pastor thrown in after the fact. My most recent funeral (last January, on the coldest day of the year) was for a lady who never married and whose only family was a sister-in-law and a nephew and a couple of nieces. Because they were not connected to our church, I was once again an afterthought, though in retrospect I had met the sis-in-law and should have/could have discussed some of these things in advance.

I don't know what the solution is for this. For non-Christians, this is just a formality they go through, which is part of the reason I'm just plug-and-play for this event in their lives (as one member our church says, most folks only care about the church three times in their lives: when they get "hatched, hitched, and dispatched"). I do think this may feed into the rationale for things like cremation. I don't necessarily think they actively seek to dishonor the body, but I do think there is a latent gnosticism (as Toby hints at above) that does not give full consideration to the body and the promise of the resurrection. There is confusion on the issue, and when pastors don't preach and teach on doctrines like the resurrection (and all that gets heard is "we all go to heaven when we die"), then false teachings like gnosticism creep in and claim squatters' rights. In the cases I mentioned above, where the funeral service is often just a formality that families traditionally go through, it is easy to justify something like cremation for pragmatic reasons. But the worst thing -- which I have seen/heard -- is when folks begin adopting a pagan-like view of cremation. The whole "sprinkle my ashes in that favorite garden so whatever so I be one with the earth" would seem to fall into this category. None of these things would seem to fall into biblical categories: we don't do things for traditional, pragmatic, or pagan reasons certainly. The positive biblical example is burial, the body is honored and not burned, there is a promise not of a disembodied existence but a future resurrection, and these are the things I try to emphasize to my people.


----------

