Common Sense Burial

Published on by D. G. Hart

Does the Bible require that when Christians die their bodies should be buried? An article over at Front Porch Republic makes a pretty good case for the Christian practice of burial, along with the not so felicitous implication that cremation is of pagan derivation. But we have no explicit instruction from Scripture, only examples. According to Andrew Harvey:

Our burning discussion keeps returning to the word “tradition.” And most Christian churches . . . had no established doctrine to address the issue of modern cremation. The only fact was convention: Christians simply had never cremated before. But burial is indisputably the rule throughout the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. God’s people in every covenant prefer interment. Everyone on God’s side gets buried eventually. From Adam to the Beloved Disciple John every saint who falls asleep in the Lord finds a grave as a bed. (Moreover, cremation is reserved in the Old Testament for the wicked and apostate: see Josh. 7:25, 2 Kgs. 23:20, Amos 2:1.) The only time where one of the Lord’s anointed is unfortunately cremated (King Saul, defiled by the Philistines) – it is through burial that his remains finally rest in peace. Additionally this hard and fast “orthopraxy” also correlates to a theology, an “orthodoxia.”

In the Gospels the burials of John the Baptist and Jesus allude to a new meaning for burial—baptism. Christ’s burial and resurrection are the physical, material, corporeal events that reveal the typology of Passover: Christ becomes our Passover because when we are baptized we are buried in his death and rise from the waters in newness of life having been set free from our spiritual Egypt—the bondage of sin and death—and set into our Promised Land of righteousness.

Of course, this does not add up to a slam dunk of the good and necessary variety. I am not sure that one can actually be made. Nor do I think cremation makes any sense as a fitting way to treat the human body. (My wife and I even refused to cremate our beloved cat.)

Here’s an example I once used on friends at Touchstone. If we wanted to save room on the planet by disposing of bodies in more efficient ways, we could always chop of the remains of the deceased so that we could actually fit more bodies into a cemetery. I suspect that most people would find repugnant the idea of having a spouse, or parent, or sibling cut up for any reason, efficiency likely several rungs down on the rationale ladder. So why would incinerating a body be any less offensive?

So could it be that the light of nature is clear even where Scripture refuses to say “thou shalt” (or for the King James challenged, “you should”)?

302 thoughts on “Common Sense Burial”

  1. Darryl Bayly,

    You wrote,

    “He may know the Bible as well as the Baylys and may actually know what to do when the Bible is silent – namely, remain silent.

    Now, now, let’s live consistently with your strictures.

    Like

  3. Darryl,

    I don’t see why cutting a deceased person up (a spouse, say) to save room should be repugnant, and all the more for incineration. (Why don’t we reuse as much of the body as we can? Some organs, issues, et al., can be donated, but it would be nice if the rest of the body could be ground-up into fertilizer or dog food. Is that repugnant? “Mommy, is Fido really eating grandma?”) In fact, you might see incineration fitting into some biblical themes that a funeral sermon could bring out: could it be symbolic of the refiners fire, the deceased now only awaiting that last and consummate step of refining in glorification? It may also be a witness, e.g., that the deceased is so confident in her Lord’s promise to resurrect and his power to create all things new so that the state of her body does not matter?

    Like

  4. I have to jump in on this one since my family has been manufacturing embalming fluid at our family business in the Chicago area since 1892 (http://www.frigidfluidco.com). This web site master may want to delete this as shameless self-promotion but I doubt if there are any funeral directors, cemetery owners or burial vault owners who are regular readers of this web site- they are our customers. We also make many products which cater to Christian burial. One of my relatives, a couple generations back, invented the casket lowering device. We are the last ones to let you down so to speak.

    I always wanted to name one of our embalming fluid products “Glory Guard” and have some fun with it but it never made it past initial stages. It probably would have offended our customers and visions of Christ and the money changers at the temple kept popping in my head. Anyways, I am a bit off topic but was trying to insert some humour.

    I guess this issue could go the absurd route of disciplining those who choose to cremate their loved ones. BTW, that would be alright with me. Ugh oh, I’m shamelessly promoting once again.

    I’m on a temporary hiatus from our family business because my older brother (who is a Willow Creeker) and I do not get along very well. However, I’m pretty sure I’ll be back there before the end of this year. We have some big plans in how to increase our embalming fluid sales.

    The percentage of cremation burials has increased dramatically in the U.S. since the mid to late 60’s. In 1965 the percentage of cremations was 6 to 8 %. In 2000 the percentage was 24% and the estimated rate in 2010 was supposed to be near 40%, I am not sure if the exact numbers are out yet. The trend is definitely towards more cremations in the US however, we are finding that there is a lot of interest in embalming in coutries like Africa and Latin America where the Christian religion is reviving and reforming.

    Like

  5. Burial at sea would work, for some. Obviously not for those of us in the inland “flyover” hinterland. But we’re barbarians anyway.

    “We are the last ones to let you down so to speak. ”

    An LOL moment. Probably an old family joke.

    Like

  6. Darryl

    Burial would be called an approved example according to the West. Assembly.
    In the debates running from May 5, through June 8, 1646 it was determined “That the jus divinum and the will and appointment of Jesus Christ is set out several ways in Scripture” as in “express words”, “necessary consequences” and approved “examples” (Minutes of the WA, pp.227,231,237).

    John Y,
    Interesting comments!

    Like

  7. The real question is whether Calvin should set the pace for extraordinary Calvinists: marked or unmarked? I think he was onto something and would likely be turning over in his unmarked bed if he saw all the Calvinpaloozas.

    (Paul, now, now, no slandering of names. But speaking of silence, I thought you and CVD had stomped off?)

    Like

  8. I have to agree with Paul regarding “silence” on this issue. Cremation vs burial is much more of a cultural issue than a Christian issue. Where I live cremation is the norm for about 90% of deaths. “Green” burials without coffins is also now becoming more common. When the senior minister of the largest Presbyterian church in the city died, his body was cremated. My father and mother were against cremation in our native Holland as only atheists used cremation in the foolish belief that they could not then be judged. Later they, especially my father, had no issues with cremation as he wasn’t concerned with his current corrupt body but looked forward to the resurrection and the resurrection body.

    No offence to John Y, but in my mind, embalming has always seemed a desecration of the body. Zrim also raises a good point regarding the marking of graves. Two of my sisters died ages two and six and lied buried in unmarked graves in Holland.

    Like

  9. Zrim Leithart,

    “Paul, now, now, no slandering of names.”

    Is sarcasm and gut-busting humor unbiblical or anti-confessional? No. So why are you talking, you’re supposed to stay quiet and allow liberty?

    “But speaking of silence, I thought you and CVD had stomped off?)

    You mean I left a few bloody carasses on the old life floor and walked away? Yes, I did. But given the recent comments on treatment of the dead, I figured I’d come back and do some dismembering, if not cremating.

    Seriously, when I tried to point out that the Bible has things to say about epistemology, Darryl said that if the confession doesn’t speak about it, maybe we need to sit down and shut up too. Well, I didn’t note the Confessional chapter on proper burial, other than being buried with Christ, I figured I’d come back and play a Darryl Hart to a Tim Bayly.

    Let’s transform burial practices. Take it back for natural law!

    Like

  11. Paul, I guess gangbanger ways die hard (why do I feel like I’m leaving a Pancake House?). But speaking of machismo and Bayly’s, I wonder if your comment belongs under the “Barefoot and Pregnant” post.

    Seriously, the concern over epistemology always makes me wonder. 2kers make a point about the sufficiency of general revelation for common tasks and then the epistemologists howl that everyone needs to be able to justify their moral knowledge. Do you guys really care how someone can justify giving you correct change or protecting your life? I just care that they do what they know is right. I mean, sure there may be no chapter on Christian burial, but I still want to know where the chapter on epistemological justification for moral knowledge is.

    Like

  12. Mankind inevitably creates ceremonies to mark important events. Consider all the symbolism in a marriage ceremony; it is optimal that such symbolism reflects a Christian view of marriage. But can we insist upon it? If a couple just decides to quickly get hitched with sparse ceremony, they should not be in fear of discipline. To be absolute on such a matter would be marry-olatry.

    Likewise with funerals. Ideally the symbolism would reflect a christian view of death and resurrection but we can’t absolutize our symbolism. We strive toward the ideal, but too often it is out of reach.

    Like

  13. Thanks to everyone who took my comments in a lighthearted way. I really have no desire to debate the pro and cons of burial vrs. cremation as I have a vested financial interest in the topic. I would very biased towards burial. I have had theological discussions with others on the topic and it can get kind of interesting. The resurrection of the body (a topic discussed in the Apostles Creed) is so clouded in mystery though that to come to any conclusions about the topic usually ends up in pure conjecture and abstraction. It may be more of a topic for philosophical theologian types than creedalists. Sorry Paul I could not resist that one.

    Like

  14. abp, but I find funeral sermons repugnant. You don’t find them called for in the Westminster Directory for worship. They call for burial services.

    And I do find reusing body parts repugnant. I think the body embodies the image of God, Ps. 8 and all that. To cut it up is to treat it disrespectfully.

    Like

  17. John Y:
    Cremation rates rose after The American Way of Death by Mitford was first published around 1962. Then the crematoria got in on the big business of funerals.She’s updated the book. I find the whole industry very objectionable (no offense intended).

    Put my body in a plain pine box and bury it within 24 hours. May I have a nice Westminster Directory burial sermon for close family and friends and let them be done with me!

    Like

  18. DGH, general revelation is hardly “chopped liver”, but does not reveal to me how a body should be disposed of, only that it be done respectfully. That can be either biblical burial in a cave or chamber, current burial practice of burying coffins in the ground, burial in the ground directly or cremation. Nature and general revelation do not tell me anything else. Culture seems to influence what we perceive as the light of nature or general revelation in some situations.

    Like

  20. Eliza,

    I have read Mitford’s book but I would question your conclusion that it had that big of effect on the general public. I think there were a lot of different cultural factors involved in the increased cremation rates. There definitely are a lot of questionable practices that go on in the industry. After finishing my studies at Calvin I had delusions of getting highly involved in trying to redeem the industry. In fact, I was in the process of writing a paper with my econ prof at Calvin with the hopes of getting it published. It kind of fell by the wayside though. I did do a lot of research on the industry and it was interesting to say the least.

    The FTC got heavily involved in the industry after Mitford’s book was published and tried regulating the industry. It really did not have that much effect on it and the practices of Funeral Directors have really not changed much since that time. The Funeral Directors Association has always had many lobbyists with political connections in Washington.

    Your comments reveal a lack of thinking on the subject and there really are some serious issues that could be thought through more reflectively about the funeral industry. Craig Parton, the Lutheran lawyer and apologist, wrote an excellent article in Modern Reformation magazine a while back on his abhorance with the common practices of Funeral Directors at Funeral Services and them catering to what the general public wanted which was very insightful. There is a certain amount of dignity which could be integrated in Funeral Services which take into account the image of God in man. Darryl is definitely on to something with his remarks about that. The funeral service is really for the greiving family not the person who died. If done with dignity it does provide a valid service to family members. I would agree that a lot of the practices are questionable but not many people really want to deal with the industry so not much really changes. It is not like people have a lot of contact with the industry. We only use once or twice during our lifetimes. There is a lot that could be changed about funeral practices.

    Like

  21. Dear John Yeazel – You are in an honorable and under appreciated profession by those who have never needed your services. After burying two children and a husband, I think I can say that with some credibility (and with an appreciation for mortician humor). With my husband’s mother in mind, I asked for all 3 to be embalmed because we had to wait several days for all of our family and friends to arrive from other states and also because we would need several days for viewing. My mother-in-law would have been devastated if I had not handled the funerals in this way for her. The funerals were expensive, but in my opinion, funerals are for both the dead and the living, and I do not regret my choices.

    Like

  22. Dear DGH – I’m sorry you have never heard a great funeral sermon. May I highly recommend that consider going to a funeral held by a confessional Lutheran church – one where the pastor knows how to clearly divide law & gospel? Lutheran funerals are beautiful and will knock your socks off with the gospel. But then again, I never could convince you to try some of our turtle soup in the past… sigh. 🙂

    Like

  24. Lily,

    Thanks for posting that Parton essay- I read it again and it was very moving and powerful. It brought back memories of my father’s death. I wish we had Parton’s advice he gives at the end of the essay when we did the arranging of his funeral service. That was a beautiful piece of writing in how he described the death of his mother and how he could tell she was getting grieved with descriptions of how wonderful she was. We really need to hear the Gospel up to the point of our last breath.

    Like

  25. Wout, how does reducing something that had been living to ashes connote respect. Your assertion does not make it so. We incinerate trash. Cremation in no way reflects respect.

    Where’s the antithesis when we need it? We can’t have public schools because of the differences between Christians and pagans, but Christians can dispose of their bodies the way pagans do? Huh!

    Eliza, thanks for siding with Wout since it suits your objections to general revelation even though you prefer by the light of nature to be buried.

    Like

  26. Maybe I prefer, by the light of Mitford’s book, to skip the whole funeral/crematoria industry!

    John Murray said that the “law of nature” is a Christian concept based in God’s Word, not a secular one that a person appropriates independently of knowledge from special revelation. I know you disagree. Cheers anyway.

    Like

  27. Eliza said: “Maybe I prefer, by the light of Mitford’s book, to skip the whole funeral/crematoria industry!”

    I reread some of your posts and your idea of a funeral service is not a bad one. Perhaps more Churches should seek to by pass the funeral industry totally. I’m sure Churches could look into the legal ramifications of trying to do their own services. I know lots of Lutheran Churches who bury their dead congregants on Church property. It is definitely something local Churches should look into. There is lots to be abhorred about about the funeral industry. Some funeral directors do provide good service to their customers but the caskets and burial vaults are difinitely over priced. It really is not a legal requirment to get embalmed either. If there has to be a period of delay between death and the funeral service it is better to get the body embalmed because it does start decomposing quickly.

    Like

  28. I am starting to remember some of the things I wrote about in the paper I wrote back in 1994. The funeral directors and cemetery owners rationale for the high priced caskets, burial vaults and grave sites is an appeal to free market economics. However, there is much evidence that local funeral directors collude with each other on the mark-up of the funeral services and products they provide. Of course, true free marketers would argue that collusion eventually breaks down and new vendors would enter the market and cause the prices to decrease to what the market could bear. However, there are numerous barriers to entry into the industry and funeral directors are good lobbyists with lots of political connections. That is what they do in the hoards of free time most of them have. You can make a good living doing only 80 services per year. The government did make an attempt to intervene into the industry without much effect, as I stated earlier. The economics of the funeral industry are another interesting study. Churches should try to do something about it. They could probably make some extra needed revenue in the process. I’m sure the government would want to have a say in the matter if that really happened. It would be a tough egg to crack but probably worth investigating more. That is how I would attack the issue if I got involved in it once again. My wheels are beginning to spin again.

    Like

  29. DGH, how does injecting chemicals in something that had been living and then it rotting from the inside out connote respect? Your assertion that burial connotes respect any more than does cremation does not make it so. We bury trash here, not incinerate it. It is only your cultural bias that feels that cremation in no way reflects respect.

    “Christians can dispose of their bodies the way pagans do?” Do you mean all Christian Americans bury their dead and all non- Christians cremate?

    It is evident from your response that the “light of nature” is some areas is determined by one’s cultural expectations.

    Like

  31. Maybe. But I say bury a dog in an unmarked grave–cremate a cat. Then again, good thing for liberty, which evidently is for wusses.

    Like

  32. John, I’m glad the wheels are once again turning for you! I wish you well in the future – you have an honorable and difficult profession to fulfill.

    I do not begrudge the funeral home I contracted for the cost of their services. My husband and I owned a small business, so I think I recognize that their costs for being in business, the funeral services, and the care of the burial sites for perpetuity can cost more than perhaps one realizes. I knew that what I was choosing was going to be expensive, but I had to weigh what would be most beneficial for my in-laws under the circumstances and I take honoring thy mother and father seriously.

    I do not regret honoring them and allowing 5 days for all of the relatives and friends from other states to arrive (many of them were elderly) or the expenses of having 3 days of viewing. I still think it was important to allow everyone time to come together, to grieve together, and pay their respects.

    Embalming was the only way that would make that possible for everyone to come together and whether embalming a body is sinful, I do not know. At the time, the most important thing for me, was the funeral service and the needs of the family members. I can only trust that God is more than able to raise us from the dead no matter what happened to the body (eg: whether lost at sea or embalmed) and will forgive us for our ignorance in not crossing every t or dotting every i in a Christian burial and has compassion for us in all.

    I have found that it is not possible to please everyone at a funeral and it’s easy for others to be critical of everything from A to Z. For me, the clear proclamation of the gospel is the most important thing and it’s all I have or need.

    Like

  36. While we’re more or less on the topic, I do have a pet peeve on how our culture deals with death. Whereas there was once a time when loved ones typically died in the home, now they die in nursing homes or hospitals or anywhere but the home. Then, when our beloved die, we make them look like they are still alive. When it comes to death, our approach is not to approach it, which is to say we deny it as much as possible. With facelifts, hair dyes, and other cosmetic measures we deny aging itself.

    The result is that we refuse to look mortality in the eye. We avert our gaze and thereby avoid weighty issues of mortality and the destinies of our souls as long as possible. And for that, I think we are more shallow and less religious.

    Like

  37. Zrim and Paul,

    You two need to kiss and makeup. That is what I love about this site. On any other site those remarks would probably have been deleted. So what I want to know is if Paul really is an ex-gangbanger. And what Paul thinks about Christian hip hop or rap too. Paul, you have stayed away from hammering me so if you want to unleash here’s your chance. You certainly could have on a number of occasions.

    Thanks for your remarks Lily. Us Lutherans have to stick together against these contentious Calvinists. Again, I am just trying to inject a bit of humour.

    Like

  38. But, John, they do bring a certain energy to the blog, don’t they? I really think they should collaborate on a blog, arguing like that on pretty much every topic under the sun.

    I’d bookmark it.

    Like

  39. Michael, and to up the ante, I wonder how we look at marriage without also look at the way that couples end up at the end of their lives. Are young people, when they look great and are feeling in love, willing to persist all the way to the difficult end? I’m not saying I had that kind of wisdom going into it. But I do think it would be a great part of pre-marital counseling if we encouraged young Christian couples to walk through a nursing home and ask if they’ll still love each other when the body is deteriorating and when romantic love has faded.

    Like

  42. Hey Michael, I also want to know if your really the Miami Vice guy; if Paul comes after one of our knees with a baseball bat do you got our backs? They do bring an energy to the blog that I find refreshing.

    Like

  43. Hey John, it’s good to know there is another Lutheran here. These darn Calvinists can be quite the rascals! 🙂 I used to read and comment here quite a while ago, but the theological heat in the debates got so hot for a few weeks that I got out of the kitchen. I remember Zrim well – he is a hoot! I’m not sure I remember the others, but that may be because they do not have distinctive names like Zrim does?

    I initially read DGH’s blog because I had mixed him up with another author, but then I began reading some of DGH’s wonderful books. I initially didn’t know there were so many things that were different in our traditions. I used to enjoy teasing DGH about being deprived because he didn’t follow the church calendar and other such things. But he good naturedly wasn’t impressed with Babette’s offering of turtle soup and other such feast items. He does have a marvelous sense of humor that accompanies his challenging blog.

    Like

  44. Michael Mann wrote: “Then, when our beloved die, we make them look like they are still alive.”

    I agree with you that much of our culture does not understand how to deal with death, but I also wondered if you have thought deeply about it? Not everyone dies of old age. You might be surprised how many parents have had children die. There is also a fairly large number of widows with children at home and older widows. There are bereaved people everywhere if you know where to look, but even in most churches, the bereaved are not on most peoples’ radar screens after the funeral.

    If you don’t mind, I would like to defend the practice of making a corpse look it’s best. There is a long tradition of carefully preparing a loved one’s body for viewing and burial. Their body is carefully washed, their best clothes are put on, their hair is fixed, and their face and body position are manipulated so they look as though they are asleep. These practices do show respect for their body and give their body dignity for the solemnity of viewing by those left behind. It not only shows honor and love for the dead, but a tenderness for the children in the family circle who must experience death from a child’s eyes. These are important details that can be handled well or poorly for grieving family and friends.

    Another thing that you may want to think of is: what about someone who died tragically in an accident and has bruises and wounds? A good mortician can remedy much of damage so that the bereaved (especially children) can view the body without being stricken with more pain from how this person died or confronted with the fact that their loved one is barely recognizable from the accident. A good preparation of the corpse can help spare the bereaved from more pain than they are already experiencing. Most people do not want a mangled or unprepared body to be their last visual memory of the beloved.

    I hope this does not sound like a reproach, I do not mean it as such. I only want to help think about these things a little deeper. Most people do not have much experience with death within their immediate family or spend the years I have with other widows and families who have had a child die. We joke that we belong to one of those clubs that hates getting new members, but will warmly welcome them at the same time.

    Like

  45. Nice remarks Lily- you obviously have gotten to know the funeral industry well. You also seem to have weathered the tragic storm that ripped through your life. Hope you have been able to put your life back together. I can’t imagine what you must have gone through. Best wishes to you and whatever family members you may have left with you.

    Like

  46. Michael, Zrim doesn’t argue (i.e., present a set of propositions wherein the truth of one, the conclusion, is said to follow from the others, the premises), so now what? I guess me and Darryl could start a YouTube page where we teach Zrim how to catch and throw a baseball. You down, Darryl?

    John,

    Not all ex-gangbangers were into rap

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidal_Tendencies

    Like

  47. Darryl,
    When my husband proposed to me he sang me these words, kind of like the nursing home idea:

    I wanna make you smile whenever you’re sad
    Carry you around when your arthritis is bad
    All I wanna do is grow old with you

    I’ll get your medicine when your tummy aches
    Build you a fire if the furnace breaks
    Oh it could be so nice, growing old with you

    I’ll miss you
    I’ll kiss you
    Give you my coat when you are cold

    I’ll need you
    I’ll feed you
    Even let ya hold the remote control

    So let me do the dishes in our kitchen sink
    Put you to bed if you’ve had too much to drink
    I could be the man who grows old with you
    I wanna grow old with you

    Like

  48. Paul,

    Glad to see you taking these comments in stride; since I’ve been indulging in self-promotion do you have any old photo’s of your gangbanging days or some examples of Christian heavy metal at You Tube. The form obviously does not follow the function but suicidal tendencies is “spot on.”

    Like

  49. I don’t know, Paul, the way George Carlin tells it, baseball sounds pretty wussy. It and football seem like two sides of a skewed machismo coin:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I

    I prefer the more gentlemanly golf, you know, the sport of pilgrims invented by Scottish Presbyterians. A good walk ruined and all that. Tennis is pleasant, too.

    Like

  50. “I agree with you that much of our culture does not understand how to deal with death, but I also wondered if you have thought deeply about it?”

    Lilly, I can only say I have thought about it, both in formal course on “Death and Dying,” and in reflection upon several funerals in the last decade of my life. I have closely observed the prolonged dying process of a couple people in my church as well. Whether that study and those observations created “deep” thought I will let you decide.

    To be clear, I am not proposing opon caskets of untreated bodies. In many cases that would greatly increase the trauma of the bereaved. It would be, as it were, “overkill.”
    To me, closed caskets are superior to open caskets. On a personal, emotional level, I want to remember the deceased engaged in their characteristic activities, not made up and propped up in a casket. I want others to remember me in the same way. The closed casket would be like a closed book, cover side down; it is over. There’s nothing further to see – this person has left us.

    Like

  51. John, thank-you for your kind remarks. I hope my comments were helpful in this conversation and helped bridge some of the differences between the theoretical and the experiential. What I find harder to communicate is how God comforts Lutherans in our doctrines and practices. Luther’s theology of the cross and following the church calendar with it’s seasons of advent and lent helps keep our hearts and minds fixed on Christ (instead of the heartache of missing our loved ones at Christmas and Easter) and who gives us hope in him (comforted with his promise of resurrection for the dead). This is an especially alien message to those from the happy-clappy churches full of the theology of glory and celebrations of life funerals!

    Like

  52. John,

    I don’t have any, but if you have access to the San Diego County Jail photos, you could find one of me.

    I generally don’t like Christian music, the lyrics are usually horrible and the music sub-par. However, one band that breaks the mold is the O.C. Supertones, e.g.,

    Zrim,

    Drop down and give me 50.

    Like

  53. Michael, I apologize if you were offended or put-off by my question. That was not my intent. I appreciate the thought you have put into the subject. The opportunity to view or not view the corpse can raise strong emotions on both sides. I did not have open-casket funerals, but viewing times were available at the funeral home for those who find it important. Handling it that way was one of the ways I tried to meet the needs of different family members and friends. And I agree, seeing the corpse of your loved one makes it clear that they are no longer with us. That is when their death, our own mortality, and other such realities can confront us head on. Peace to you.

    Like

  54. My suspicion, unverified, is that cremation used to be associated with pagan — specifically Teuton and/or Roman — funeral practices and beliefs. If so, that would explain the historical opposition of Christians to cremation.

    Having been to a Hindu cremation before, I can understand feeling that something is “just plain wrong here.”

    But the actual argument doesn’t hold water. Cremation turns the body into … dust. What’s so problematic about that? The only difference between burial and cremation is time. Either way, the atoms get assimilated into the soil. Either way, we get a new body at the eschaton.

    Like

  56. Michael, I am thankful I did not offend you – it’s hard to convey some thoughts in the comment boxes without wondering if you were able to do it without offending someone. And, you are much too kind about my input – you made me blush! I will warn you that I’m in way over my head on this blog – especially regarding many of the Calvinist debates between their different denominations/teachers.

    Like

  58. Paul,

    My comment about the band One Eskimo had nothing to do with the Supertones or anything else you have said. I just thought I might put a plug in for the band. Thank God that I have been translated out of darkness into His marvelous light. That is my hope for all I come in contact with. I’m not questioning your salvation either- I ain’t judgin just saying; I can relate brother!!

    Like

  59. Lily said: “Hey John, it’s good to know there is another Lutheran here. These darn Calvinists can be quite the rascals!”

    Actually the image of the “little rascals” comes to mind- Buckwheat and Spanky to be specific. Or, with the kid with the ubiquitous colic in the middle of his head. I cannot remember his name.

    Like

  61. Very funny, John! I hadn’t associated the Little Rascals with the Calvinist Rascals. It’s kinda scary to think about this group being an Our Gang with Spanky, Buckwheat, and Alfalfa singing off-key. Hmm… if that old movie serial fits the Calvinists… then, which serial fits the Lutherans? Perhaps, only The Shadow Knows for sure? 🙂

    Like

  62. Todd and Lily,

    Alfalfa, yes that’s it. Zrim can be Alfalfa and Paul, Spanky! You have to admit there is a slight bit of resemblance. I’ll have to find something on You Tube about Spanky and our Gang. It is Spanky’s Gang and Paul was an ex-Gangbangar. If I remember right Alfalfa was always trying to thwart Spanky’s antics, plots and agenda’s and vice versa.

    Like

  63. Paul,

    I just listened to the Supertones again and the lyrics could have been written by you. I think you were being tongue in cheek but I have misinterpreted you in the past. The tune does not fit the head banging, heavy metal image of the gangsta gangbanger. I would say the form did not fit the function either.

    Like

  64. Here is a bit of Our Gang trivia, John: When Robert Blake (remember In Cold Blood?) was a child, he played one of the Our Gang characters that they named with his real name: Mickey Gubitos.

    Some of the early Our Gang characters were: Stymie, Froggy, Porky, Chubby, Farina, Sunshine Sammy, Pineapple, Wheezer, Breezy…

    The bullies were: Butch, Waldo, and Woim

    Like

  65. John,

    I was not being tongue in cheek, I have most of their albums. I, of course, am not the man I used to be. I listen to a wide variety of music. I also was never a “gang banger,” that’s Zrim’s term. Anyway, I think I’ve told you this before, have a good one.

    Like

  66. Lily,

    Whoever wrote and directed that show was a genius. I wonder where they found those kids at too. The names are genius in themselves. I did not know that Robert Blake was part of Spanky’s Gang- Mickey Gubitos, sounds like he grew up in Jersey. Wasn’t Robert Blake the guy who was on trial for the murder of his wife? Can’t remember if he was found guilty or not guilty.

    Carlin did another short stand-up routine on names that is Spankyesque. I think it is at You Tube too but I am bad at linking video’s. I’m sure it is easy to do but have not spent the time to try to figure it out.

    It’s been nice chatting with you Lily. It’s not too often that I find a female who can be conversant on theological issues; plus you know a lot about the funeral industry and small business management. The Lutheran Church I attend is mostly older and younger folk. Not many middle agers. The Pastor is what keeps me going there. He is a great guy-most Lutheran Pastors are.

    Like

  67. Come on Paul give me a break. I like reading some of the stuff you have at your Aporetic Christianity site. I even enjoy the books I have bought from gleaning your Goodreads site. I apologize if some of the things I have said were offensive. You do not strike me as someone who would take offense easily. Perhaps I went a bit too far.

    Like

  68. John, I had a dim memory about Robert Blake being one of the Our Gang tykes and I had to look it up to make sure. I think Blake is the one accused of murdering his wife, but I don’t know what happened to him. I also had dim memories of who all the characters were on Our Gang so I had to look that up too. Like you, I enjoyed that series growing up. You can find a fairly thorough history on the series on Wikipedia.

    I used to love Carlin back in the day when TV was squeaky clean – he was sooo funny! I didn’t care for him when he and the other comediennes became foul-mouthed. ‘O the joys of the good old days!

    I enjoyed conversing with you too. I’m glad you have a good pastor and that you enjoy the WTS professors. If it wasn’t for them, I doubt that I would have read any of the works from their tradition and I would have been poorer for it.

    Like

  69. Lily,

    Lutherans do have a rather odd but I think fascinating history with the Calvinists since the Reformation. The little bits you get about it in the Book of Concord misrepresent some of the Calvinist position’s I think. There has been much misunderstand between the two groups. I am not an expert on the issues separating them but many charicatures have been passed on between the groups over the years. I heard one Lutheran pastor blast some Calvinists for started a reformation Church in Heidelberg recently. The accusations were ridiculous and were a good example of how charicatures are passed on. I have benefited greatly from dialoging with Calvinists and I even find my Lutheran pastor having some of the same charicature beliefs about the Calvinists that many other Lutherans do. Lutherans kind of shied away from covenant theology- you won’t find many Lutheran theologians arguing from a covenant perspective. They think its starting point of the sovereignty of God diminishes from a Christocentric perspective. Of course, the sacraments have always been an issue between the Calvinists and Lutherans since Zwingli and Luther argued at Marbury (or was it Marsburg?). It is my belief that Luther and Calvin could have probably better hashed out their theological differences if they had ever met together. But that is pure conjecture. Melancthon did have much correspondance with Calvin and Bucer and I have recently heard that Bucer met with Luther at Wittenberg and they came to some resolutions called the Wittenberg Concord. But much has been lost of that meeting and historical events kept the two groups from trying to reconcile their differences. I always try to read up and any new material I might come across.

    I have heard Carlin rip Christians shamelessly and passionately-especially Catholics. I believe he tried maintaining and regaining some kind of faith but was turned off by a lot of what he found in Churches. I am not sure which ones he attended but I have heard him spew much venom against religion. I think you might classify him as being harmed by the Church. Rod Rosenbladt has a moving sermon about that issue at his son’s New Reformation web site (I believe that is the name of the site). It is well worth listening to. I kind of try to look past his foul mouth (it can be quite offensive) and try to understand what is behind it. The Law and Gospel is not presented properly in many Churches. The Westminster West faculty is very meticulous and careful about presented the Gospel in an accurate and powerful way- although some Neo-Cals would beg to differ. I think the Galatian heresy is behind much false presentations of the Gospel and you find it in many sermons and theologies from all different denominations-even from those denominations that should know better. And many continue to say that theology is not important. There is no way to get around it if you want to have any sort of intellectual honesty. Many refuse to even listen to the debates. That is why I hang in there here- there is often more heat than light shed but the light does eventually shine through. It seems to me that God makes us work to find the truth about theological issues. But I am bent on believing that God will not allow us to wallow in confusion when we persevere in our seeking his truth. As Luther powerful stated to Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will- “The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic.” That line sends chills up and down my spine and the hairs in the back of my head stand up.

    Like

  70. Jeff, so let’s play this out in a couple directions. First, imagine how much greater the miracle of Christ’s resurrection would have been if he had been cremated. Second, what about cult and culture discussions? If the eschaton is going to restore/redeem everything, why worry about transforming things now? Let NYC go to hell. At the Lord’s return it will be glorified like our bodies.

    But aside from this, do you really think that cremation or burial are equal in showing respect for the pinnacle of God’s created order?

    Like

  71. John,

    It is sad how both Lutherans and Calvinists have mischaracterized each other or misunderstood what was being addressed. For example, many Lutherans don’t realize that Hermann Sasse was criticizing Barth’s flavor of Calvinism in Germany in his writings and that it doesn’t apply to all Calvinists.

    I have found that I have more in common with orthodox protestant confessionals of all stripes than I do the with the liberal or evangelical wanna-be flavors of Lutheranism. Among the confessionals, I find we all have our distinctive theologies that we will not budge on, but we have a lot in common in our theologies. Plus, we are all under the authority of our confessions/doctrines and we steadily mature from hearing our confessions, doctrines, catechisms, liturgies, hymns and the gospel being faithfully presented week-in and week-out. It is a humble process, but we become rooted and grounded in Christ not the latest Christian cause celebre.

    I am troubled by the debate with the Neo-Cals, but after thinking about it, I’m no longer surprised that there is no consensus. Those whose teachings lead to moralistic, therapeutic, deism seem to have been blinded by the power, prestige, and lucre of their celebrity. In some cases it is sad that they cannot see how they misrepresent the Christian faith, but in others, it’s tempting to tar and feather them.

    Not only does it seem that the Neo-Calvinists lack regard for the authority and wisdom in orthodox confessions, but I wonder if they give two hoots for the laity and new converts? We need orthodoxy and to continually hear sermons that clearly distinguish law and gospel – to have Christ placarded before us week-in and week-out. We need Christ or we die. It’s not rocket science. You don’t need a divinity degree or a PhD to understand that we are not little saviors, we are not the gospel, and our testimony is Christ not ourselves.

    How on earth are we, the laity, supposed to become grounded in good old-fashioned solid doctrine, catechize our children in the faith, fulfill our vocations, and care for our neighbors if there is a goal for the laity to pursue the pipe-dream of saving the culture? There is only one Christ. There is only one gospel. Do they lack faith in God to fulfill his plan his way?

    I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to say this in a nicer way: Neo-Calvinism sounds like a bunch of nincompoopery. Do they really think they have enough light in their philosophy, theology, and logic to overthrow God’s limits and boundaries for us? Such stuff and nonsense! It’s no longer a wonder why their theology so often sounds incoherent in their writings and lectures. All they seem to have to offer is a thin gruel of specious doctrines that shift with whichever direction the wind blows them that week.

    A theologian of the cross would observe that the Neo-Cal emperors have no clothes. There is a HUGE difference between teachers who proclaim Christ to hungry souls and sermons of law that manipulate the laity into serving pipe-dreams of saving culture or the latest cause celebre. The laity need preachers of Christ not sophists. Are the Neo-Calvinists as compelled to save Mongolian culture as they are American culture? Or is there no opportunity for them to reap power, prestige, and lucre there? I doubt that Neo-Cals understand the theology of the cross.

    I am not impressed when a man says he has been called by God to be a minister or teach at a seminary. Show me your doctrine. Show me your character. Show me your love for the least of us. That is the type of criteria that will prove a call or not. Sophistic rhetoric is a sure sign of disqualification. But what do I know? I am among the least of us – a mere laywoman. Kyrie eleison.

    Like

  72. Amen Lily-if you ever are in the Chicago area I will buy you a drink. My Pastor just put Mathew Harrison’s book Christ Have Mercy: How to Put your Faith in Action in my lap and told me I need to read it. We have been going over it and meeting once a week to talk about it. You should get it and read it if you have not yet.

    Darryl and Zrim have been trying to get the Neo-Cals to see exactly what you have said. The Cultural agenda is a big waste of time and a huge distraction from the issues and concerns we should be concentrating on. You are “spot on” baby.

    Like

  73. Lily,

    I better warn you though that you have just opened yourself up to the wrath of the Neo-Cals. I doubt if they will shoot at a woman but stanger things have happened. You should check out the Green Baggins web site. They are fastly approaching the 800 remarks record.

    Like

  75. John, but chances are the N-C’s will let a Lutheran pass. They seem to store up their disapproval for their own kin. And VanDrunen shows that being Dutch doesn’t even help. Maybe like Jewishness, Dutchness has to come through the mother. Dave’s mother is a New Englander.

    Like

  76. You do have a good sense of humor Darryl. That has to keep you sane when you are dodging the bullets. Your the man!!- although Paul thinks you and Zrim both are a bit light in the loafers. Ugh Oh, and I just apologized to Paul. If the issues here were not so serious 3/4th’s of this stuff would be comical.

    Like

  77. Could it be that the Neo-Cals have been infected with a tad bit of narcississm? But that disease is cunning, baffling and powerful and can attach itself to anyone in rather subtle and deceptive ways. The best remedy, besides the theology of the cross, seems to be the ability to not take oneself so seriously and laugh at yourself more frequently.

    Like

  79. John, self-deprecation is always good, but I’m not sure it would work. As I see it, Neo-Cals do identify some important problems. What they propose as solutions is the problem. Or to your point about the theology of the cross, neo-Cals don’t always acknowledge that there is no solution short of the last day and that we simply need to suffer. That does not suit the American can-do attitude. Hey, wait a minute. I thought the neo-Cals were Dutch.

    Like

  80. I will have to think about that one for awhile. So, you are saying that the Dutch Neo-Cals have unwittingly been absorbed into the Borg- American style, and they should have known better? There does seem to be an aversion to suffering among the Neo-Cals. Paul (the Apostle) and Peter seem to have gotten to the point where they gloried in suffering in their writings in the New Testament; without being masochistic I hope. I suppose there is a subtle danger in making an idol of suffering too. Why does this stuff have to be so complicated?

    Like

  81. Come to think of it Luther and Calvin both got to the point that they saw suffering as the Christians lot in this life. That was a helpful insight. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

    Like

  82. John,

    First, I am giving you a break. I’m living up to the narrative you’ve written for me. If I responded with anything less, I wouldn’t fit the mean, nasty, rude, arrogant math nerd image, now would I?

    Second, I didn’t say that Darryl was light in the loafers, that’s Zrim. I said Darryl knew what i meant because Darryl shares my opinion of Zrim. While I may not agree with Darryl’s idiosyncratic and singularly held to 2k (well, doubly held to, if you count Zrim), I can agree with him that Zrim shouldn’t be filing down his calluses and wearing a night time yogurt face mask complete with cold cucumber slices over his eyes.

    Like

  83. John, you are giving me too much credit in saying, I’m spot on. But then again, I’m Lutheran, are we ever wrong? 😛

    I’m still chewing on the brief you wrote about the debates between Neo-Cals and Confessionals. Until I saw their names listed as Neo-Cals, I thought they were part of the general evangelical chaos at large. I’m still not convinced my category for them is wrong. They do not look, sound, feel, or taste like anyone I would classify as a Calvinist, but then again, the first Calvinist I had a much exposure to was Sinclair Ferguson and then the WTS CA gang, so I may be biased. At any rate, it seems incongruous to me that adding a little Calvin, Kuyper, and other such theologians to the general confusion in evangelicalism would necessarily qualify anyone to call themselves Neo-Calvinists.

    Thanks for the warning. If the Neo-Cals want to cream me, what can I say? Lutherans aren’t exactly famous for being irenic, charitable, or subtle if we see the gospel at stake. From my perspective, the gospel is clearly about God saving us, it’s clearly not about saving anyone’s culture. Being salt and light in our communities can be a helpful preservative, but it’s definitely not the gospel. May God have mercy upon all and graciously reveal the difference.

    Thanks for the heads-up on the Green Baggins website. The comments were interesting, but not something I will follow. Most of the Puritans make my eyes cross and, from my perspective, it looks like those who oppose 2k have a tendency towards some confusion with: eschatology, law and gospel, the theology of the cross, submission to authority, and etc. I may be all wet, but I wonder if there is a lack of a cohesive theology that underlies the opposition to 2k…

    One name, Trueman, that I saw mentioned at GB caught my attention because I know of a resource that might help shed more light on his convictions – it was an interview with him at WTS on his book, Republocrat. If I remember correctly, he states that he is not R2k – I think this statement came during the last third of the video – the video is also fairly enlightening on his political convictions: http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/7067/nm/Republocrat:+Confessions+of+a+Liberal+Conservative+%5BPaperback%5D

    I haven’t read Pastor Harrison’s book yet, but Christ Have Mercy is on my reading list. I am thankful that Harrison was elected to be our synod President. We have been blessed with a real gem this time.

    Like

  84. You are too funny, DGH. The figure transformation and saving Philadelphia project might actually work well together, especially if you include Christianizing the Jewish Delis. You might get a nice work out fleeing the lynch mobs…

    The major problem I see with Christianizing Philly is that you wouldn’t qualify for martyrdom for getting yourself murdered for ruining the local cuisine and honestly, have you ever heard of a good Christian Deli?

    Like

  85. Mmmm, cucumbers.

    But, Paul, you seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of idiosyncratic. Near as I can tell, when it comes to 2k, it seems to mean those 2kers who think the slower virtues of patience, endurance and tolerance are superior and see more value in the things of cultivation and maintenance when it comes to cultural participation than transformation and improvement. Why does that have to be idiosyncratic, as in radical, as in to be avoided, as in to be marginalized? I recall CVD demeaning my own 2k outlook on how to do earth as “sitting around growing turnips.” Now it’s cucumbers with you. But you guys wouldn’t have veggies to throw if it weren’t for those who took the time to grow them.

    Like

  86. Paul,

    Well done- you are taking all this in stride once again. And with humor too.

    Lily,

    Isn’t there a joke about Lutherans and St. Peter having to tell all the other occupants in heaven to be quiet because the Lutherans think they are the only one’s there? Thanks for taking my comments about the drink and calling you baby in stride too. I was getting a bit worried how you might take that. Although I was a bit disappointed that you chose to ignore them. I have a tendency to find my foot in my mouth on a habitual basis.

    Like

  87. Zrim and Paul,

    Wasn’t it Luther who said when asked what he would do if he knew the Lord was going to return tomorrow that he would plant an Apple Tree today? Sounds more like “sitting around and growing turnips” to me. He was confident that the Word could accomplish God’s purposes better than any of our good works. He seems to have spent most of his time concentrating on Word and Sacrament and his duties surrounding what that entailed.

    Like

  88. Zrim, I’ve laid out the case at my blog. If you can’t manage to bother with the opposing literature, why bother at all? And you need to loosen up. Do you need another one of those pregnancy massages? You remember, the one that used the lavender lotion.

    Like

  89. John, pssst, I never said anything about growing or not growing turnips. That’s Zrim’s M.O. You know, where he inserts his straw man premises and then pretends his “refuting” something that was never said. You need to work on seeing those logical weak spots so you don’t get beguiled by others’ bad reasoning. The lord loves a cheerful giver and a good reasoner. And it is with cheer that give you tips on avoiding sophistic rhetoric.

    Like

  90. Hey John! That joke is about the Catholics! (no salvation outside of the RC church – remember?) Lutherans probably deserve it too, though! The story about Martin Luther and the apple tree is supposed to be a myth. Apparently the quote can’t be traced back any further than 1944. I like the joke: You might be Lutheran if… a midlife crisis means switching from the old hymnbook to the new one. Too true!

    I’m sorry for not replying to some of your comments, John, I didn’t mean to ignore anything. I realized that my comments are much too long and hopefully I’m starting to amend my ways.

    Like

  91. Is anyone interested in returning to the topic of Common Sense Burial for a bit?

    I was reading a news article about the Roman Catholic church and an individual offering to bury the remains of the infants slain at the Kermit Gosnell abortion mill. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110127_Stu_Bykofsky__Someone_steps_forward_to_care_for_the_tiny_dead.html

    My question is: What is the best way to handle the partial remains of numerous unknown infants with unknown relatives? Any thoughts?

    Like

  92. Paul,

    Pssst, if you read the post more carefully it was addressed to both you and Zrim. I was siding with Zrim’s attitude about cultural endevours rather than the typical (which might be stereotyped) Neo-Cals attitude in that regard. I never said you said anything about growing or not growing turnips. Perhaps you have too much analytical philosophy and logical fallacies on your brain. Do you ever turn that stuff off and enjoy your life a bit? Watch the turnips grow Paul, that can be enlightening. It’s God who gives the growth.

    Lily,

    No, it was not a joke about Catholics- it was definitely about Lutherans. It had something to do with C.S. Lewis’s metaphor about the various denominations having rooms off the common hallway of mere Christianity and then St. Peter walking down the hallway with folk from other faith traditions and telling them to be quiet when walking past the Lutheran room because they thought they were the only ones in the house. Kopisch? And you have now doubly ignored my offer to buy you a drink if you are ever in the Chicago area. I’m miffed as to how you jumped from drinks to long comments. But females often cause me to scratch my head.

    In regards to getting back on topic, I wish I could be of more help to you on that question but I’m sure your local funeral director would be more than happy to give you some guidance.

    Like

  93. Lily,

    Thanks for the Luther and Apple tree correction. I will be sure not to use that example again. I have heard many people refer to that story though and have come across it on more than a few occasions. Now I am curious as to why it started and who started it. One of many distractions that easily encumber our brains.

    Like

  94. John,

    I had only heard the joke in reference to the Catholic church because of their teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. I didn’t remember C.S. Lewis’ passage the same way you did, so I looked it up. He does not refer to the Lutheran church in that passage (I don’t remember him writing about Lutherans in any of his work) – you can find the full text here: http://merecslewis.blogspot.com/2010/02/finding-your-room.html

    Here is a site on how to trace suspect Luther quotations to see if they are accurate – it also corrects the misinformation on Luther’s eschatology and the apple tree: http://www.yoel.info/egwhiteandluther.htm

    As for the offer of a drink in Chicago, I thought it was a gesture and not serious. I appreciate the offer, but I live in DFW (headquarters for numerous fruitcake ministries and mega-churches) and I don’t travel, so it will need to be the gesture of a toast! As for jumping to being concerned about making long comments, well, it seems to be one of the hazards of being female. 😛

    Regarding the remains and partial remains of the infants in Philly – for better or worse, I read reports that contained some of the grisly details and photos from the abortion mill. When I read the news about the Catholic church offering to bury the remains, I was struck by the memory of photos of shelves of severed feet stored in numerous jars and deeply moved by the difficulty of addressing all the parts and pieces of infants. It’s a heart-breaking situation where it seems that all that may be left of some infants is a severed foot. I am clueless on how natural law or Christian tradition speaks to the situation and wondered if this group had any ideas.

    Like

  95. Zrim: …it seems to mean those 2kers who think the slower virtues of patience, endurance and tolerance are superior and see more value in the things of cultivation and maintenance when it comes to cultural participation than transformation and improvement.

    Of course, some of us think that cultivation and maintenance *are* an improvement over current standards …

    To paraphrase Luther: plant a tree!

    Like

  97. Paul, John and Jeff, but every time I plant a tree some epistemologist demands that I prove how I know it’s a tree and the sky is blue. When I try to answer I get called a sophist and told to loosen up. Sigh.

    Yes, John, remember that faith is really just the sum of metaphysical parts (you know, the way human beings are just the sum of physical parts), and the perfect argument solves everything. Once you get that down you can not only build faith like a Lego farm instead of or alongside Word and sacrament, you can get those that do to question it. And when someone walks away from your perfectly crafted logic and still theologically disagrees with you or chooses the cross to dispute fillasofee, you get to say they are lazy and dim.

    Jeff, well now you’re just being idiosyncratic. Next you’ll be suggesting one 2ker can be politically liberal and another can be politically conservative or some combination of the two, or even (gasp!) apolitical.

    Like

  98. Zrim – you are a hoot.

    John – I posted a reply for you earlier this morning. My computer says that it is in moderation – it had a couple a links that perhaps put it there?

    Like

  99. Zrim,

    That was classic- I wonder how long it took for Paul to cultivate his condescending and patronizing modus operendi?- perhaps he was just born that way.

    Lily,

    I find that hard to believe about the moderation thing. Are you making that up or is that a true occurance? I have many other thoughts going through my head but it probably would not be appropriate to put them on a web site. You can always leave me a message at my facebook site which you can link by clicking my name here. Or, you can email me: johny382100@yahoo.com.

    Like

  100. John – don’t be a pill. It’s in moderation and when DGH gets to it, I’m sure he will release it. Old Life gave me the message that I’ve already posted the comment, so I cannot repost it. Thanks for the alternatives, but I have no desire to join Facebook and I don’t PM with people I don’t know well. Pax.

    Like

  101. P.S. My computer screen shows my comment and under my name it reads, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Beware of insinuating I’m lying in the future unless you look good tarred and feathered!

    Like

  102. John,

    Pssst, pay attention. Zrim’s comment was a rabbit trail, it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying. So, good for you that you sided with Zrim, but it’s not like Zrim was being responsive to anything I wrote. Quit huffing embalming fluid, it rots the brain! And if you must know, I enjoy life quite a bit. But seeing your constant insinuations about otheres (e.g., Lily), I’m not confident you enjoy your life. It’s all a big conspiracy. You probably deny the holocaust and think Bush blew up the towers, dontcha?

    And the attitude here is the attitude I learned from Darryl Hart. I’m being a Hart to the Hart.

    Anyway, didn’t you email me before an call Zrim and Darryl “arrogant pricks” and tell me that you appreciated how I was showing all the gaps and flaws in their obvious dodgings of issues and inability to argue for what they assert? So, how ’bout ‘dem apples?

    Zrim,

    Still burning 50 ft. strawmen, I see. I side with DVD on this one, you don’t. Live with it. But here’s the question: why does being 2K give you a right to lie about things you disagree with just so you can sleep well at night with your cucumber mask on? For someone who has NEVER read any philosophy, logic textbooks, or even a systematic theology from cover to cover (those nasty systematics, trying to show the logical connections between various doctrines!), why do you comment like you’re a world’s expert on _______. Funny, for a non-worldviwer and non-neo-Cal, you sure do know a lot about everything.

    Like

  103. DGH: Sorry, missed your earlier comment.

    Jeff, so let’s play this out in a couple directions. First, imagine how much greater the miracle of Christ’s resurrection would have been if he had been cremated.

    Indeed. In which case, no doubt John 11 would be rewritten with Martha saying, “Lord, it’s been four days … his ashes are from here to Cairo by now!”

    Whence now?

    DGH: Second, what about cult and culture discussions? If the eschaton is going to restore/redeem everything, why worry about transforming things now? Let NYC go to hell.

    It’s halfway there …

    Did I say that out loud?

    Seriously, though, cremation and burial are both concessions to the reality of death, not attempts to transform death into something good.

    DGH: But aside from this, do you really think that cremation or burial are equal in showing respect for the pinnacle of God’s created order?

    I think respect is two parts culture and four parts attitude, and no parts anything else.

    Taking out the eyes of a corpse can be done quite disrespectfully; or it can be done for the purpose of organ donation. The action of itself does not carry value except insofar as it signs something.

    Now, in our culture, it might well be that cremation is a sign of disrespect for many (to you, clearly), so burial would be preferrable. But that’s in man’s eyes, not God’s eyes.

    Perhaps burying a man with his possessions is disrespectful in God’s eyes.

    What’s interesting to me, though, is that your post promised a “light of nature” argument and here you are sneaking Biblical categories in through the back door. Isn’t that what you like least about transformationalists?

    Or are you play-acting to prove exactly that point?

    Like

  104. Paul, how do you know what I’ve read or not read? I think you’d be surprised. But in terms of making connections between doctrines, I do think there is a strong one between the ecclesiological concerns of 2k and soteriological project of sola fide. So, wherever I might zig from your zagging on how best to go about civil life (cultivation before transformation), I do think DVD is onto something with that connection.

    Like

  105. Zrim, I think you told me you maybe read a couple pages of Aristotle back in college.

    I also know what you haven’t read based on what you say. It’s pretty revealing.

    Like

  106. Wow, all hell has broken loose here. I don’t know where to begin. I guess I will start with Lily. I was not insinuating you were lying. It was more of a shock that you actually responded. I apologize for my recklessness. I will not bother you with any nonsense again.

    I really have nothing to say to you Paul except bless you!! I hope Darryl and Zrim will still dialog with me because I value the things they have to say. That email which Paul spoke about was always lingering in the back of my mind that it would one day come back and haunt me. I have not emailed him since that time. I regret that I spoke those words. It was probably sent between 6 to 8 months ago when I reacted to being ignored or something which one of them said to me. My attitude towards Darryl and Zrim have been radically altered and I knew Paul was going to come out with that one day. I am surprised it did not come out earlier. When you are getting to know new people you say things that later you realize you should not have said. I think most people can understand that. Some of my best friends have been those I originally did not particularly like until I got to know them better. And oftentimes it was after I had a disagreement or verbal fight with them.

    If no one responds to my comments I will consider the matter closed. No hard feeling towards anyone I hope. I look at most of the people who blog here as my superiors. So, take me with a grain of salt. Best wishes to all.

    Like

  107. John, you are fine. I was giving you heck. That’s one of the things that I dislike about comment boxes – things don’t always come off the way I intend. My warped sense of humor doesn’t help either.

    Like

  108. Zrim,

    May I please ask a question since you are a 2k man? I do not understand what you mean by: “civil life (cultivation before transformation)” That doesn’t make sense to my 2k ears and I do not know if we are using the same meaning of transformation? Please let me state some of what I understand, so you know where I’m coming from?

    When I hear Christians talking about transforming culture, these are some of the things that come to my mind:

    1) I think they are confusing the two realms and miss the dangers of trying to bring heaven to earth. It seems to me that both the liberal and conservative Christians tend to make the same mistake. They both have social gospels – just different versions. These social gospels start off with good intentions, but they morph into utopian schemes and every utopian scheme man has tried is proof of our sinful natures because they always turn out to be tyrannical.

    2) I think they forget that we have sin natures. We cannot force people to be good or to become Christians. We can have laws and enforcement agencies (police/military) that will help work as restraints on evil, but we also know that outward conformity to laws doesn’t necessary mean inward conformity. We know the law can never bring about righteousness. Only the gospel can bring righteousness.

    3) I believe there is only one transformation available to us and that is the transformation that God gives us through salvation. As many problems as we have managing our churches, what makes us think we can manage the world and transform it? We can express our faith in the earthly kingdom by doing what we can, but it is with the knowledge that we while we can do good, we cannot solve all of the problems around us or create a utopia. Our hope or confidence is not supposed to be in the world’s structures, institutions, or governments – it is passing away.

    Would you please explain what you mean by “civil life (cultivation before transformation)?”

    Like

  110. Paul,

    You are way off in regards to my politics too. I used to follow the political scene pretty heavy when I was going to Calvin College. I became so disgusted with it that I would almost consider myself apolitical. However, I also adhere to the adage that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I am not a conspiracy theorist either. How bout them Apples? I think that was in reference to the movie Goodwill Hunting but I am not sure how I should interpret that.

    I try not to hold resentments and I’m struggling with that right now. You ain’t gonna beat me though-I’m in recovery.

    Like

  111. No John – please no eggshells. I’m sorry I didn’t make it plain where I was giving you heck back and where my warped humor was kicking in.

    Like

  113. Jeff, in case you haven’t noticed, creation and light of nature are biblical categories. So is the resurrection. What I am saying is that no biblical text exists to say you must bury bodies.

    Well, you lost me with organ donation. Can’t remember when, but I read a very good article by Neuhaus in First Things about the bad things that organ donation says about the body. I lump tattoos and piercings in with that perspective. Also cannibalism. Would you draw the line there (not that you would actually kill someone for food but if they were already dead)? I’m not trying to be mean or snotty. I’m just wondering how far your “the resurrection will reconstruct the body” goes.

    And I still think the analogy of culture is useful. If we want to take the arts, politics, all aspects of God’s creation seriously, then why do we treat the body so shabbily when we incinerate it? Does not the body have some intrinsic worth? And so isn’t the way we dispose of it indicative of our attitude toward it? You know, manners and Emily Post, not prooftexts from the Bible.

    Like

  115. John,

    I shouldn’t have given up the email info, I sinned out of anger and hope you forgive me. After eight months or so of you constantly calling me arrogant and other names here, I had it and thought you needed to be checked. As far as the politics, I wasn’t commenting on it. I was picking out conspiracy theory things since you always seem to think others have “hidden” motives in what they say. Anyway, as I said, I shouldn’t have ever relayed the info. That was wrong and there’s no excuse for it. I have a hot temper, which is to say I’m Italian. I take Luther’s “when you sin, sin boldy” a little too literally, I think I’ll now go plant a tree. Seriously, I hope you take my apology for what it is: real and sincere.

    Like

  116. DGH: Well, you lost me with organ donation. Can’t remember when, but I read a very good article by Neuhaus in First Things about the bad things that organ donation says about the body.

    That’s a hard sell for me. A donated organ does a lot of good.

    So a man dies and donates his liver to his brother … and he dies, and donates the liver to his brother, and so on down through seven brothers. In the resurrection, who gets the liver?

    And of course, the answer is, we all get *new* livers, not refurbished ones. The questioner errs in not understanding the power of God.

    I’m just wondering how far your “the resurrection will reconstruct the body” goes.

    Very seriously. As a scientist, I take seriously the fact that all of the atoms in my body were formerly parts of plants and animals; many of those were previously parts of other people. At the moment of my birth, 100% of the atoms in my body had previously belong to my mother (save the few that belonged to my father).

    In every breath, you take in approximately 200 oxygen atoms that were breathed by Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address. You’re a piece of history, man!

    This are just the facts on the ground.

    But in the resurrection, God gives us something new, something eternal, that is not subject to the same laws of physics (else, we’d die again). It has recognizable continuity with the old, or at least Jesus’ body did; but it is not at all like the old in terms of physical properties, or at least Jesus’ body was not.

    My point is, it’s not wrong to say that we are both spiritual and physical beings. But we need to more clearly understand the nature of our physical being.

    Our bodies aren’t static; the parts that make them up are continually changing and being exchanged with the environment in which we live. So we can’t overdignify the body by insisting that there is a moral obligation to leave it “as is” in burial. It didn’t remain “as is” in life; why should it be frozen in place in death? The good body is the one to come, not this one.

    At least, I’m banking on the fact that my paraplegic friend who passed away recently will have functioning legs and arms in the eschaton.

    Like

  117. I just went back and read Paul’s post and it was huffing not sniffing embalming fluid. Not sure how one huff’s something but I think that can be taken as a synonym of sniffing. And Paul was not really commenting on my politics but more on my supposed conspiricy theories. I think I might of made some comment way back when about conspiricy theories and my being prone to them. Perhaps that stems from my investigations into the political scene and an attraction to TV shows like 24.

    One last thing, I have become convinced that confessionalism is the route to go rather than the philosophical theologian way. I was not convinced of that until recently. Perhaps there may be some kind of synthesis between the two one day but I highly doubt it. Synthesis is Hegelian talk anyways isn’t it? Darryl is being consistent I think with using natural law and special revelation when arguing about cultural matters. From what I have observed the philosophical theologians will not even go there. Or, find problems with it beyond my desire to really put the effort in trying to understand it. Some of the arguing seems to go into the twilight zone.

    I should let the common sense burial discussion continue.

    Like

  118. Thanks Paul- I appreciate that too; apology accepted and I sincerly apologize back at you. I was writing my previous post before I read yours. I did need to be checked.

    As Darryl has stated the Neo-Cals do see a lot of the problems but the solutions between Confessionalists and Neo-Cals are obviously very different and take different approaches and methodologies. No hard feelings Paul but we still can spare and take shots at each other without being offended I hope.

    Like

  119. Thanks, John. FWIW, it’s not an either/or thing between confessionalism and philosophical theology, IMO.

    Like

  120. Lily, I hear the same things you do when Christians talk about transforming culture.

    But when I say that cultivating culture is superior to transforming it I am talking about something more broad than what is typically involved in the narrow 2k/transformational discussions. Even non-religious folks think in terms of “transformation of culture.” With them I would also diverge, so it’s not simply a theological set of concerns I have here. I think the default setting for most Americans, religious or not, is progress, change and improvement. I think more in terms of cultivation, maintenance, tradition, preservation and conservation. I’ll agree with religionists and secularists in the common realm who think in these terms before I’ll agree with those who think in the former terms.

    Like

  121. I said: “Darryl is being consistent I think with using natural law and special revelation when arguing about cultural matters.”

    I meant general revelation not special revelation.

    Like

  122. Jeff, so what about cannibalism? It is the use of a dead person for the benefit of others, right? I suppose you object to cannibalism — I’m not trying to set you up. So what is the moral difference between giving a dead person’s liver to someone else and eating that liver? I am truly curious.

    I don’t dispute the science. What I dispute is regarding the body in simply natural/physical categories. The human form is different from the rest of creation, if only because God took human form. I think the Bible says somewhere that even the angels are jealous (of course not sinfully) of human beings.

    Like

  124. Zrim: I think the default setting for most Americans, religious or not, is progress, change and improvement. I think more in terms of cultivation, maintenance, tradition, preservation and conservation.

    I do, too. Nice to agree on something. 🙂

    Like

  125. Darryl and Jeff,

    I hope you keep this conversation going-I am all ears and wondering where it will all lead to. I used to be very embarrassed about our family business when growing up and tried to keep it hidden from others. Now I am finding the whole subject of death and burial and how it relates to theology fascinating. Perhaps it will clear up any identity problems I used to have in my past and it will create more meaning and purpose for my life. It is certainly creating a curiosity and motivation to find out more about it. I’m going to have to make my brother and two sons who work there aware of this post. It will be interesting to see how they react to it. Although I might have block their eyes from the comments with Lily and Paul.

    Like

  126. DGH: Jeff, so what about cannibalism? It is the use of a dead person for the benefit of others, right? I suppose you object to cannibalism — I’m not trying to set you up. So what is the moral difference between giving a dead person’s liver to someone else and eating that liver? I am truly curious.

    Well, first of all, cannibalism carries increased risk of prion diseases (kuru).

    But besides that, think about two factors: necessity and regulation.

    With organ donation, there is always a dire need; and the requirements of organs (that they be in usable condition and a match) make it somewhat self-regulating. You can’t just pull Joe Schmoe off the street and drug him and take out his kidneys, contrary to urban legend. So the line between “donation” and “robbery” remains bright.

    With cannibalism, there is almost never a dire need; and there would be no way to regulate it, to prevent someone from pulling Joe Schmoe off the street and eating him. So the line between “necro-cannibalism” (eating the already dead) and just plain murder would be much harder to maintain.

    So what about cannibalism in case of dire need, such as occurred with Flight 571? I have to say that if my friend were torn between eating my body and staying alive; or respecting my dead body and dying of starvation — well, I would hope that he would know that I’m not there anymore. It’s just a shell.

    So I think need is the core issue here, along with the conviction that the dead body is not me, it was just my temporary dwelling place.

    Like

  127. Paul,

    You said: “it’s not an either/or thing between confessionalism and philosophical theology”

    Come to think of it, Nevin came close to wedding the two or at least using the approaches and methodologies of each for their respective functions. I am not sure if that is what you meant by your statement. The philosophical theology field is much different now then it was in Nevin’s day. But he could be used as an example that it does not necessarily have to be an either/or thing. I would be interested in hearing Darryl’s thoughts on that since he is the Nevin expert here. I think Darryl looks at the purpose and function of philosophical theology differently than you do Paul. Anyways, I thought I might throw that one out there.

    Like

  128. Lily,

    I see that the comment hidden in moderation has appeared. I will look it over and comment later about it. Have a few things I have to get done today.

    Like

  129. And no I doubt if I would look good tared and feathered- the wrath of a woman is something I have experienced in the past and would not be something I would want to experience again. I avoid it all costs.

    Like

  130. John, if you search my blog for historical theology and analytic theology, you’ll see people who bring them together in the contemporary world. The reason that it’s not either/or is that there’s nothing *essential* to the “Confession” that would rule it out; indeed, the Confession itself makes use of philosophical categories and takes stands on philosophical positions. But the Confession is a list of assertions about what we believe, it’s not *arguments*, there are some who would like to be given *reasons* for why they should believe something, and so philosophical theology can be employed to offer many of the *arguments* that Confessionalism needs.

    Like

  131. Thanks for the reply, Zrim. It was the way “civil life (cultivation before transformation)” was worded that raised questions for me. The word “before” threw me because it looked like there was a progression from cultivation to transformation.

    I agree with your thoughts and I’m becoming convinced that technology facilitates the progressive view of humanity. Yesterday, I read an article addressing “the medium is the message” that is worth reading in it’s entirety – here is an excerpt:

    “The transformative influence of “free press” upon society has much less to do with the opinions that are expressed than with the way they are expressed, with the means used. At the simplest level, the medium determines what will be discussed. For what is discussed will be what can be discussed, and communicated most conveniently, in that medium.

    And to my mind, secularism, socialism, the Nanny State, all follow from the nature of the discussion in alphabetical mass media. Print is instructional, by nature, and once it is out of monastic hands, it begins changing the world in the direction of a “how to” manual. Print guides the mind to technical solutions, which it proposes for “problems” identified and analyzed in ever more technical ways. It allows, then enforces, specialization and accreditation of “experts.” But this specialization is itself really an alternative general approach — to seeing things whole.

    That is to say, print enables, and periodical journalism enforces, a general movement from poetry to prose, then finally to footnote (or web link); and with that, the breaking down of a unified vision into a faceted vision of things. We come to see the world, as it were, less like men and more like houseflies.

    Quite literally so, in one important respect — for the fly’s eyes are attuned almost exclusively to movement, especially quick movement; whereas the man’s were rather more suited to the contemplation of landscape, still life, portrait, and icon. (I rather think that’s what Kafka was getting at in his tale “Metamorphosis.”)

    The article can be found here:

    http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/eye-of-the-fly.html

    Like

  132. Jeff, you seem to be focused on the pragmatic over the symbolic. I wonder what you think of the biblical passage in which a woman pours perfume on Jesus. The disciples, as you recall, were “indignant,” and pragmatically insisted that the value of the perfume could have helped the poor. Jesus, of course, rejected that pragmatic line of thought, commending her for employing appropriate symbolism that profoundly recognized his identity.

    I hear what you are saying in terms of the ways in which body parts can be used to help others. But that is a pretty modern way of thinking, which in itself makes me suspicious.

    As a PS, I guess, I do recognize the problematic nature of using a scripture when the blog entry is about natural reason. It seems, though, that the woman using the perfume was not following a biblical ceremony, but, rather, a simple (but elegant) form of reason: “I pay honor by the symbolism of pouring this perfume.” The analogy, of course, is “we recognize the body as God’s creation and have a hope in a future resurrection.”

    Like

  133. MM: The disciple in question of course was Judas, who was using “concern for the poor” as a cover for embezzlement (John 12).

    But the symbolism argument is still worth considering. Within Jesus’ culture, pouring perfume on the feet meant something, and so the woman’s actions were an expression of love and proper adoration.

    Likewise here, a burial can *mean* something — respect, even — and that expression of respect is valuable.

    My point is not to do away with cultural symbols, but to recognize their situated nature. A burial ceremony uses culturally situated symbols and uses them to create respect and remembrance and nostalgia and hope.

    But these culturally situated symbols are not absolute. Whereas the “light of nature”, the law of God written on the heart, is absolute. So that says right there that a particular burial ceremony is not a part of the light of nature per se.

    So in essence, I’m arguing that DGH’s argument against cremation confuses culture and natural law.

    The analogy, of course, is “we recognize the body as God’s creation and have a hope in a future resurrection.”

    Right. A cremation could just as easily say the same thing: Ashes to ashes and dust to dust; but Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and he who believes in Him shall live even though he dies.

    Like

  135. Jeff, I’m trying not to be shocked but I do wonder why you are not more alarmed by a willingness to contemplate cannibalism. Most cultures have recognized this as a taboo — something that is inherently deformed. Again, I am not trying to paint you into a corner like Nazism. But I am actually surprised.

    And again, this idea of respect and symbol as situated and therefore fungible is one that makes hay of cultural transformation since transforming culture implies some manners and culture as the ones we want to see realized. But if they are all situated, and therefore ephemeral, what’s the point of trying to establish, institute, or establish Christian cultural conventions or forms?

    I am not arguing for Christian culture. I am arguing for creational culture, and therefore taking seriously what it means to be situated — that this situation is something that God has created, ordained and sustained, and therefore we do not treat like it is a disposable razor. And we are particularly situated in bodies (like the one Christ took upon himself) and that situation may actually place limits on what we do.

    Here I think of Leon Kass’ amazing book, The Hungry Soul, in which he develops the spiritual significance of the human body and the meaning that comes with the holes that we have on our face and in our behinds.

    Like I’ve said before, if we take the Bible as our only norm, we tend to disregard the other book of nature, and don’t study it to see what God has revealed there and what norms he has established.

    Like

  137. DGH: Jeff, I’m trying not to be shocked but I do wonder why you are not more alarmed by a willingness to contemplate cannibalism.

    That’s probably a function of the ‘net. You should have seen my face. 🙂

    But notice under what circumstances I was willing to contemplate it: first, to contemplate it because you wanted me to distinguish it from organ donation; second, to contemplate it as an “option” iff. it was necessary for survival — a circumstance that puts one on the fringes of the probable.

    So please don’t mistake a theoretical contemplation for willing embrace.

    —

    And again, this idea of respect and symbol as situated and therefore fungible is one that makes hay of cultural transformation…

    Bingo. Hence my unwillingness to identify with the cultural transformation crowd.

    I am arguing for creational culture, and therefore taking seriously what it means to be situated — that this situation is something that God has created, ordained and sustained, and therefore we do not treat like it is a disposable razor. And we are particularly situated in bodies (like the one Christ took upon himself) and that situation may actually place limits on what we do.

    Sure. For example, disfiguring real live people (as in branding) is out.

    I just happen to believe that squeamishness about organ donation partakes more of pagan-ish superstition about the dead than in genuine Christian reflection on what it means to live in a temporary tent.

    It’s worth considering that the end-point of your argument is the JW refusal to have blood transfusions.

    And I may be wrong. Or you may be wrong. But the point is, we have liberty in this matter to disagree.

    And that’s why I’m surprised that you’re trying to make it a matter of right and wrong. Whatever happened to Christian liberty?

    —

    DGH: Like I’ve said before, if we take the Bible as our only norm, we tend to disregard the other book of nature, and don’t study it to see what God has revealed there and what norms he has established.

    Badda-bing. But the flip side is that many so-called “norms of nature” are just personal preference in a cute little argument. Think for a moment about all of the “arguments from nature” about the inferiority of the black man.

    So insisting on the Bible as the gold standard of norms has the virtue of helping us to resist the commands of men who want to bind our consciences. Nicht wahr?

    Like

  138. Michael – I don’t think it is an either/or, but a both/and.

    In the example of Jesus, where the woman honored her Lord by cleansing his feet with her tears and hair, and anointing his feet with oil, I’m not convinced we can separate the material from the action. Both what she did is real and what she used is real. It don’t think it would make sense if she had used sea water, an old rag, and pineapple juice. I hope I am making sense here.

    If God gave man both a body and a soul, does only the soul have meaning or do they both have meaning? I certainly don’t have the answers, but I think the choice we make about whether to bury, cremate, cannibalize, or donate organ parts reveals some kind of belief behind it. I think the way we treat a man created by God is important and suspect it may somehow be linked to the commandments of loving God and our neighbor (another both/and situation). I am concerned that the way modern culture purposely cremate corpses, utilize them as organ donors, and occasionally justifies eating them falls into some kind of utilitarianism.

    I can understand the love expressed by someone leaving their organs to save the lives of others, but that practice appears to be morphing into a utilitarian euthanasia and spare parts mentality. This blog post and it’s embedded links expose the changes underway:

    Belgian doctors harvesting organs from disabled euthanasia donors
    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/01/25/belgian-doctors-harvesting-organs-from-disabled-euthanasia-donors

    Like

  139. Lily, I do think you put your finger on a real problem with the idea of organ donation. If the situation on the ground becomes one in which the bright line is removed, it gets ugly fast.

    Like

  141. Lily I think you are talking to Jeff
    btw if you don’t mind, how is “Lily” pronounced? And is it related to the flower or something else?

    Like

  143. Lily, thanks.

    The comment about cultivating over transforming was prompted by Paul who was referencing an exchange we once had about a quote from David VanDrunen. Paul asked what I thought of this:

    However, this is not to say that we as Christians should not participate in the culture war, and it does not mean that all the methods or goals of those on the frontlines of the culture war are wrong. Not at all. God commanded the people in Jeremiah 29 to seek the peace and prosperity of the city in which they lived, and this applies to us as well. We know that a nation with increasing numbers of cocaine-addicts, abortions, thefts, child-abuse cases, illiterates, etc., etc., will not retain desirable levels of peace and prosperity for long. Therefore we do have an obligation to do things which will, if not eliminate such things, at least substantially reduce their rate of occurrence. The peace and prosperity of our society, not to mention our personal peace and prosperity, depend on it. And the political sphere certainly is one of the institutions of culture which will make its indelible stamp on the peace and prosperity of the society. Christians therefore should have an interest in the political process when their form of government allows it, as ours does. To turn our backs on politics would mean to turn our backs in part to the command of God to seek the peace and prosperity of our nation. We may debate amongst ourselves which political positions to promote and how much emphasis should be given to the political process, but the interest and involvement in politics which we see among the “religious right” is in itself a good thing. But, it must always be accompanied by the realization that we are participating in the politics of Babylon. What should we hope to gain by our cultural, including political, activity? Only a relatively better life for society, ourselves, and our children in the years to come than what we would otherwise face. We seek not the destruction of our enemies, but simply a modestly better society which in the future will face exactly the same kinds of threats and require the same sort of opposition. Perhaps we can turn America back to the culture of the 1950′s. But the 1960′s will always follow.

    To which I responded:

    I am familiar with the quote and have always agreed with it’s spirit in order to make the larger point about cultural participation, but I think some of the language is unfortunate. I personally do not see as much value in so-called “culture war.” I take exception to the implication that warring is helpful to the cultivation of society; in fact, I find there to be even amongst good fellow 2kers less than adequate consideration of the fact that warring has a detrimental effect on society. I know, that makes me some sort of pacifist. So be it, but I think there is something ironic or contradictory about pilgrims warring. Again, this isn’t to pass judgment on those who choose to war, rather an explanation for why I pass on it. I, too, want to seek the peace of the city, but I just think there are better ways to do it.

    Paul also talks about the example of talking a neighbor out of having an abortion to the end of transforming things. I’d rather befriend and cultivate relationship with a neighbor to the end of cultivating things. That cultivation may certainly include conveying my personal opposition to said behavior, but I think a well cultivated relationship would also include much, much more. So I think his example, and his way of addressing it, demonstrates just how most Christians view their larger participation in wider culture. I just think human relating is way more complicated and nuanced than that. And I remain mystified as to how anyone thinks cultural warring builds the fabric of society.

    Like

  144. Jeff, you said “But these culturally situated symbols are not absolute. Whereas the “light of nature”, the law of God written on the heart, is absolute. So that says right there that a particular burial ceremony is not a part of the light of nature per se.”

    Well, OK, I would never claim they are absolute. My approach has been to determine what, on the whole, seems like the best practice. I would not claim to have discovered a natural law.

    BTW, the Matthew account mentions the objection of the “disciples” and Jesus’ rebuke of them. No mention of Judas there, and Jesus notes “She has done a beautiful thing to me;” symbolism and beauty win over pragmatism!

    Like

  145. Jeff – you are so very right about how ugly it gets when the lines are removed. A parallel example is how the lines were removed in abortion. I was told (but haven’t verified) that Kermit Gosnell (Philly abortionist) recently appeared before the court and didn’t understand why there were 8 counts of murder against him. He understood 1 count because of the woman’s death, but apparently he didn’t think the 7 infants he delivered and killed should qualify as murder. It’s scary to see our world on such a dehumanizing path.

    Like

  146. Michael, I apologize for mixing-up the comments. I will try to be more careful in the future, but I’m not sure I won’t have anymore “senior” moments!

    And yes, Lily is pronounced like the flower. Lily is supposed to be the meaning of my given name, Susan. I’m part of a forum where there are four of us Susans, so I adopted Lily to help make things easier. I found the same problem on a couple of other blogs and after reading a couple of articles on internet safety, it seemed best to stick with Lily online.

    Like

  147. Lily — yes, that was quite gruesome. But there, I would argue that abortion is (mostly) wrong in all cases. Whereas with organ donation, it’s not nearly so clear.

    Michael:

    BTW, the Matthew account mentions the objection of the “disciples” and Jesus’ rebuke of them..

    And in Mark 14 also. But note that Judas is not absent. In both the Matthaen and Markan accounts, this incident is the occasion upon which Judas goes and agrees to betray Jesus.

    As I understand it, putting Matthew, Mark, and John together (and considering Luke 7 to be a separate, unrelated incident), Judas is the one who brings up the issue of the perfume’s cost out of bitterness at his lost income. Perhaps some of the other disciples — we don’t know how many, or whether Matthew and Mark are simply being generic — echo Judas’ complaint.

    Jesus’ rebuke is very pointed towards Judas, though:

    You will always have the poor among you (John)
    The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. (Mark)

    Here, Jesus is making clear to Judas that he has had and will have opportunities to help the poor, opportunities that he has squandered by giving in to greed. By saying “you can help them any time you want”, Jesus is exposing the fact that Judas *doesn’t* want to help the poor. This comment is delivered with a significant look, so to speak.

    And by pointing out that they will not always have them, Jesus is revealing that he is aware of Judas’ thoughts and intent to betray him (cf. John 6.70-71).

    And I believe, though it is a bit speculative, that Judas catches this, which is what spurs him to act sooner rather than later. Hence in Matthew and Mark both, Judas goes out immediately after this interaction and makes the deal to betray Jesus.

    So while there is a bit of beauty v. pragmatism here on the surface, and perhaps the other disciples read it in this way, the real story underneath is the war in Judas’ heart, the upcoming crucifixion, and the contrast between faithful Mary who seems to know the best things to do, and Judas whose heart is sold out to money.

    What is beautiful here is Mary’s devotion and love, expressed in the symbolism. What is ugly here is Judas’ layered hypocrisy, cloaked in concern for the poor. It’s not “beauty v. pragmatism” but “loyalty v. greed.”

    Like

  148. Jeff, I don’t know whether you just took great pains to point out that I did not exhaust the significance of the text (something neither pretended nor necessary to make my point), or whether your goal is to diminish the impact of what I said. Either way, I ditto what I said above.

    As you state in your last paragraph, the symbolism showed a state of her heart and mind. The former was a vehicle for the latter. The perfectly pragmatic argument that the cost of the perfume could have helped the needy (paralell: organs could help the needy) did not prevail.

    I’m not saying this text in itself puts your argument to rest, but it does tend against it.

    Like

  149. Jeff, well is the end point of your argument tatts and piercings? Civilized society has considered cannibalism ghastly, even for emergency reasons. And this is why I think evangelicals (if you are one or an indication of one) are so unreliable in the debates about civilization and culture — norms of nature are just personal preference. That sounds exactly like what women and Af-Ams were saying at Shakespeare and Bach in the 1970s.

    I’m not trying to bait you. But I do wish you would reconsider how important cultural norms and conventions are. We actually cannot live without them. And that’s all the more reason why we need more (not for eternal blessedness) than the Bible.

    Like

  152. Zrim, thank-you for going into more depth.

    I agree that it would be best for Christians to be not at war with the culture they live in. The opposition to traditional morals in our culture wars seems to be always coming up with new alternative ways to distort the truth and we end up in a perpetual struggle over morals. It reminds me of trying to nail jello to a wall and seems unrealistic since we cannot expect outsiders to conform to Christ. I am concerned about how the culture wars may be affecting the gospel when Christianity is viewed as being all about morals. What I find most troubling outside of the public square, is how common-sense, natural law, and reason are becoming more and more easily rejected as irrelevant.

    I agree with your thoughts on befriending others, letting friendships develop, and how nuanced and personal these relationships are. IMO, these kinds of encounters and friendships give us a venue to love and serve all kinds of neighbors outside our normal vocations and gives what I believe is a more fruitful place to share Christian viewpoints and the gospel (if they are amenable).

    I have wondered if 2k is more difficult for some of the Reformed groups to accept because they do not interact with the theology of the cross and the doctrine of vocation? IMO, both of these doctrines interact with 2k and help flesh it out. The theology of the cross is helpful because it exposes the theology of glory underlying a save-the-culture mentality and the doctrine of vocation interacts with 2k in a way that is instructive in showing us how to integrate faith and life and how to live out the paradox of being in but not of the world. (But.. then again, the Reformed do not seem particularly interested in Babette’s turtle soup). 🙂

    Pax!

    Like

  153. DGH –

    1. …wasn’t one of the many defects of gnosticism to think the body is unimportant?
    Yep! I can only suppose I’ll see an F on my next report card.

    2. …please don’t be so polite. I’m not used to it.
    Hmm… sounds like a Rodney Dangerfield scenario…

    3. …how do you know you’ll get back all your organs? Jesus still had his scars.
    Would you please quite blowing up my pipe dreams of being 22 again? 😛

    Like

  154. Lily, I have very fond memories of seeing “Babette’s Feast.” A girl was involved, though, and it became a very complicated relationship, which are the best kinds.

    Like

  156. Isn’t it nice how Lutherans and pc-2K Calvinists get along so well. Maybe that’s why Neo-Cals call pc-2kers Lutherans so often. If we could only get the sacrament thing worked out we would be one big happy family. We all might have to go back to age 8 though.

    Like

  157. I want to summarize what we have learned here about death and its relation to proper burial by gleaning truths which are evident through natural reason and general revelation. I will have to go back and read some of the comments again. Since I have a vested interest in the topic, how about if I make a summary statement and then others who do not agree or can add insight do so at their own convenience? I probably will not be able to get to that until after Church today and I know you Calvinists attend two services today and probably will not respond until tomorrow.

    I also still have questions about whether special revelation can bring clarity to this issue, how churches should integrate their understanding of death and burial into their churches and if something can be done about the problem of how funeral directors run their services in the culture with an appeal to the Craig Parton essay in Modern Reformation magazine. Should Churches take a more active role in caring for the death needs of its congregants, including those who are close to the ones who have died? Those are still some of the lingering questions and thoughts I have.

    Like

  159. John, I still have two services to go but I’m not sure of your question’s meaning regarding churches taking a more active role. It seems to me its a case by case matter. Having lost two parents last spring, and being a fairly private person, I didn’t want a lot of attention — though prayers were greatly appreciated. But others will have different temperaments and needs.

    A related question is whether believers are in churches where pastoral staff and elders can actually address this need. Not to take a needless shot, but the celebrity pastors out there are likely several steps removed from the needs of those suffering the loss of loved ones. I know that pastors have different gifts, but I’m not sure the pulpit ministry should ever be disconnected from one of personal comfort and counsel — so that some pastors do the private stuff and the few do the public face of the ministry. I mean, if the man expositing God’s word is not ministering that word to people privately as well as publicly, is that really what the ministry is about?

    Like

  160. Darryl,

    We do sing a psalm (singular) in the Divine service I attend each Sunday and it is not accompanied by the organ. But, maybe to the chagrin of the Calvinist’s, it is only one and the other 3 or 4 hymms we sing are accompanied by the organ.

    Good points about my second post. Local churches should have freedom in how they deal with the death and burial needs of its congregants but there should be some kind of doctrinal belief about death which guides the confession and practices of the Church.

    I agree 100% about Pastors being disconnected from congregants and them needing to have a bigger role in all the congregants lives. The model of Richard Baxter has always been one I have been attracted to. I read his book The Reformed Pastor back in the days I was attending charismatic and non-denominational churches and wondered why I saw that modeled so infrequently. I have found that many Lutheran Pastors do model Baxter- mine certainly does and I am all the better for it. And deeply grateful. He has brought me out of the miry clay of my own abetting sins (and sin).

    Like

  162. DGH, I was teasing – I picked 22 out of a hat. One the serious side, understanding what the perfection of a new heaven and earth will be like is beyond me. I can’t imagine a world without children and yet who wants to stay age 8 for all of eternity? Hormones don’t seem like they should be a problem since there is no marriage there, but I can’t imagine a world without marriage. At this point, I can only hope that us oldsters will at least feel like we’re 22 again!

    I am not convinced that missing a few body parts is beyond God’s ability to restore. I think of people who are born disabled, or those who have lost arms or legs, people eaten by wild animals, and other such things…. Saint Paul has much say in 1 Cor 15 about our resurrection, including, ‘And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.’ But what does it mean to bear his heavenly image?

    Jesus showed the disciples his scars, but that was prior to his ascension. In Revelation, Saint John describes Christ after his ascension as:

    ‘His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.’

    After such a description, I can’t help but think something happened after Jesus’ ascension plus when Mary found Jesus in the garden after his resurrection, he told her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” Again, I wonder what does it mean to bear his heavenly image? I haven’t a clue what it means and can only rest in knowing that God knows and that he will deny no good thing to us.

    I wonder if it is easy to fall into gnostic views about a corpse because it’s so obvious that the person we loved and knew is no longer there? We have their body, yet they are not there. I am concerned about what we purposefully choose to do with a corpse and I do not know that there is any way for us to have perfect knowledge. I only know to look at Christian tradition as my guide and trust that God is compassionate and merciful towards us in our ignorance. To leave our traditions and look at natural law as a guide, I am lost as to what to say about cremation or organ donation.

    I am curious how the Roman Catholics will handle the remains of all the parts and pieces of the infants that Kermit Gosnell slaughtered. Will there be a baptism for the dead? Every mommy instinct in me desperately wants those poor infants to be baptized and the Roman Catholics to be right about baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), but that is something that we do not adhere to in our confessions. My only peace is in knowing that God is God and it rests in his hands.

    Like

  163. Zrim – pray tell how complicated it became – did you marry the dear lady? (I’m teasing you, here – you don’t have to answer this!)

    I should explain that I used to tease our OPC host about the difference between our traditions with goofy comments about Babette’s feast and turtle soup. If I remember correctly, the OPC does not use musical instruments, only sings psalms, does not adhere to the church calendar, and other such things? Since we do partake of those things, it was fun to tease him about missing out on turtle soup and so forth. I’m still waiting for heaven where Christ will gently let him know know how malnourished his diet was (again, I tease). 🙂

    Like

  164. Zrim, I forgot my last paragraph. I meant to add that I was teasing that the theology of the cross and the doctrine of vocation probably fell into our differences category.

    Like

  165. Doggone it! There I went sliding into gnosticism again. I mixed up the Roman Catholics with the Latter Day Saint gang with regards to the baptism of the dead. Well, phooey – can I blame it on another one of those senior moments? …didn’t think so!

    Like

  166. Paul said: But the Confession is a list of assertions about what we believe, it’s not *arguments*, there are some who would like to be given *reasons* for why they should believe something, and so philosophical theology can be employed to offer many of the *arguments* that Confessionalism needs.

    I hear what you are saying in that sentence. I had a discussion with a Lutheran from the Wisconsin synod once over at the Riddleblog who rebuked me for trying to appeal to apologetics and philosophy to argue about doctrine or discussing theological matters with unbelievers. He stated that he found a simple appeal to the Law and Gospel scheme was much more effective in those types of endevours. I disagreed with him at the time and appealed to Warfield as my model in regards to arguing the faith. Riddlebarger discussed this a lot in his doctrinal thesis about Warfield. Warfields apologetic scheme made sense to me the way Riddlebarger explained it. However, I also see the point the WELS Lutheran was making.

    You probably would not agree with the Law and Gospel scheme or Warfield’s scheme in doing apologetics. And you constantly are telling Darryl and Zrim and they do not know how to argue. In the final analysis it is the Holy Spirit who brings someone to repentance and faith. So, it seems to me that much searching and time can be wasted trying to answer questions which unbelievers will go round and round with. There may be good intellectual answers that we can give but it is not those answers which bring people to repentance and faith.

    I know you will not agree with what I said here but I find my time more constructively spent concentrating on historical theology, biblical theology and systematic theology. You philosophical theologian types can argue till the end of the world but a lot of it seem to me to be a lot of sound and fury which can signify nothing. AKA a lot of waste of time and a big distraction to what really matters.

    Like

  167. On the other hand, I do see the value of arguing apologetics and philosophy in academic settings. Most people have not been trained in the art of arguing properly and do not keep up with the newest philosophies and other such things. Most could also not tell you the differences between Kant, Hegel or Heidegger,etc., etc. In order to discuss things like you would want to here you also would have to be cognizant of the major fallacies and how to notice them in common language. Again, many people are not trained to think that way and do not spend the time needed to argue according to the rules of logic. That may be more a statement of the poor education people often get.

    From what I have read of Luther and Calvin they became quite disgusted with the endless stream of objections to good and sound theology. Luther called reason a whore on many occasions when dealing with those who endlessly speculated and objected to Christianity.

    Like

  168. DGH: And this is why I think evangelicals (if you are one or an indication of one) are so unreliable in the debates about civilization and culture … I’m not trying to bait you.

    Ah. It just *looks like* the usual cultural form of baiting. But you’re not bound by the usual cultural forms. Got it. 😉

    Seriously: You asked me how cannibalism *was different from* organ donation. I gave two reasons for “cannibalism bad, organ donation good.” And now somehow I’m defending cannibalism?

    Come now.

    Like

  169. DGH: But I do wish you would reconsider how important cultural norms and conventions are. We actually cannot live without them.

    This is one of the several ways in which you’ve mangled my argument. Nowhere have I argued that cultural norms and conventions are unimportant. I live within a certain culture, and I am thereby bound by those norms in terms of interacting with others, as a matter of charity.

    My argument is not that cultural norms are unimportant, but rather that they aren’t the same as natural law.

    Think about it: The cultural norm is idolatry. The natural law is worship of the true God. That fact alone ought to demonstrate that natural law is not the same as cultural norms.

    I also think you’re flirting here with binding people’s consciences.

    Like

  170. (Lily, suffice it to say that in my more ungodly moments I have thought that in would’ve been a good idea in the drawing boards of my creation to have endowed, amongst other things, fictional writing skills. That way, I could take those particular complications and write a novel. Alas, all I was afforded were the complications.)

    John, Paul has also suggested that our theology owes a great debt to philosophy. But try as I might I ever and only see biblical passages cited in the confessions. It sure seems to me our theology owes a great debt to the Bible. When he says things like “…the Confession is a list of assertions about what we believe” I have to seriously wonder how he thinks those assertions came about. Did they just drop out of thin air, with no previous exegesis, reasoning and argument made? I cut my teeth of faith in pretty anti-intellectual fundy circles where it was believed that the Bible was true, but nobody seemed to know what it said. So I appreciate the great value of knowing what one believes and why. But it sure seems to me Paul makes a mirror error of intellectualism, elevating reason above Scripture.

    I know saying these sorts of things aggravates him something fierce. But when I read the Apostle Paul…

    For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    …I just don’t get the sense that he thinks philosophy and worldly wisdom really are as cracked up to be what Paul Manata assumes.

    Like

  171. Jeff wrote: The natural law is worship of the true God.

    Jeff, may I ask you to explain that? Doesn’t natural law regulate creation? I haven’t a clue how it can be considered worship.

    Like

  173. Lily, the core prooftext for the existence of natural law is Rom 1.18ff:

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    From this, it is argued that the law of God is written on the hearts of men and not merely on tablets of stone.

    The natural law is *not* sufficient to give men an understanding of the Gospel or of the proper way to worship, but it is sufficient to condemn idolatry. (cf. Calvin’s Commentary Rom 1 and also Calv Inst 1.3)

    So you’re right that natural law does not regulate worship. But it does condemn false worship; whereas cultural norms embrace it.

    Like

  175. JRC: It’s worth considering that the end-point of your argument is the JW refusal to have blood transfusions.

    DGH: Jeff, well is the end point of your argument tatts and piercings?

    Are you trying to make some moral equivalence between refusing a blood transfusion and getting a tattoo?

    DGH: Jeff, how do you know you’ll get back all your organs? Jesus still had his scars.

    I’m sure that if I’m missing any particular organ, it won’t matter. Jesus’ scars aren’t considered a liability by the living creatures and elders in Revelation.

    Before you reply on the merits, please answer this one question: How is your argument “from natural law” against tattoos, or organ donation (!), any different from James Dobson telling parents that Christian parenting looks like “X.”

    I mean, here you are as an elder of the church, on a theological blog, telling the readers that getting a tattoo is *wrong* or donating organs is *wrong* because “the natural law says so.”

    To my mind, this looks like a major betrayal of the principle of Christian liberty. Do Christians not have the freedom to get tattoos or become organ donors or become organ recipients? And if they do, then why are you trying to make them second-guess themselves?!

    Like

  176. Jeff, I’m glad you enjoyed the link. That commercial cracks me up, probably because it reminds two jokes about women – the other one is about cats really being tiny women in fur coats. I like the jokes about men and dogs, too. I’m an equal rights advocate when it comes to jokes.

    Thanks for the reply. It looks like we both have the same understanding of the proof text, but I still don’t understand your earlier statement: “The natural law is worship of the true God.” It looks like you are saying that natural law and worship are the same thing?

    I must be missing something here. Let me give you an example that will hopefully help you see where I am coming from. The Bible tells the truth about God, but I would not say that the Bible is worship of the true God. In my mind, natural law tells the truth about creation and in a limited way, God, but I cannot see how it is worship. Does that explain my problem with the sentence?

    Like

  177. Jeff, I didn’t say you were defending cannibalism. What I think it is fair to say is that in SOME cases you think cannibalism is permissible and defensible. The light of nature tells most people to recoil at all times and everywhere from cannibalism. That doesn’t work for you. I get it. But I can wish that you found the light of nature more compelling.

    Like

  178. Jeff, I’m not sure how a cultural norm can be important (my view) and at the same time is it idolatry (your assessment). If a cultural norm is idolatry, shouldn’t I flee from it?

    Like

  179. Jeff, so everything I write all the time is an elder? This gives me authority to tell people what is right and wrong? Then why doesn’t it work with my wife or my cats?

    I do think you are needlessly extrapolating here, but you are displaying one of those anti-2k ticks — always show the other side’s inconsistencies. But not to despair, I wrote that the Bible is silent on this and so this is one man’s opinion, backed up by lots of other men and women — that consensus comes from the light of nature since the Bible is silent.

    Is it your view, seriously, that the only things that are right and wrong come from Scripture? Does that apply to travelling in basketball, or opening a door for a lady, or passing only in the left hand lane?

    Conventions and manners are valuable truths that don’t seem to rise to a level of significance on your view, apparently because the Bible is silent?

    Like

  180. DGH: Jeff, so everything I write all the time is an elder?

    Given your office and the prominent role that things of the church plays on this blog, I would encourage caution. Especially when you are arguing from God’s natural law.

    When Barack Obama starts opining about the BCS system, it’s a little hard to separate the person from the office.

    And especially because you considered it fair game to label me as theologically “unreliable”, because I happened to disagree with your opinions. Them’s strong words, brother, and they suggest that you see very little freedom in this matter.

    DGH: Is it your view, seriously, that the only things that are right and wrong come from Scripture? Does that apply to travelling in basketball, or opening a door for a lady, or passing only in the left hand lane?

    It is my view that there is a distinction between an action in itself and what that action signs. In the United States, passing only in the left-hand lane is a matter of courtesy and kindness, because of the convention that people going slower should stay right and faster, left. Passing on the right increases the chance of accidents.

    In the UK, passing in the left-hand lane is likely to be discourteous (Not sure about this — haven’t driven there).

    So there’s a difference between the action in itself, which is neutral — not pre- or proscribed in Scripture, certainly — and what it signs in a particular situation. GIVEN a particular culture (MD highways, for example), passing on the left is not morally neutrally, because it signs something.

    DGH: Conventions and manners are valuable truths that don’t seem to rise to a level of significance on your view, apparently because the Bible is silent?

    Quite the contrary. Manners matter greatly; but manners differ from culture to culture.

    Is it polite to open a present in the presence of the giver? The answer is opposite in America and the Czech Republic. But both norms should be obeyed, out of charity, when in that culture.

    Like

  181. Lily: Thanks for the reply. It looks like we both have the same understanding of the proof text, but I still don’t understand your earlier statement: “The natural law is worship of the true God.” It looks like you are saying that natural law and worship are the same thing?

    Ah. I was entirely unclear. What I meant is not that the natural law is equivalent to worship (which is what my words said … oops!). Rather, I meant that the first and foremost thing taught in the natural is to worship the true God … not how to worship Him necessarily, but that we should worship Him.

    So the contrast is that the natural law teaches us that we ought to worship YHWH; but the cultural norm is to worship the creation.

    Like

  182. Michael,

    We may have to agree to disagree about John 12 || Matt 26 || Mark 14, but here’s my point in a nutshell:

    Given what John has to say, it seems more likely that Jesus rejects the argument because it is insincere, rather than because it is pragmatic.

    I recognize that you place weight on the fact that “disciples” were saying this (presumably, not just Judas). And that makes sense.

    However, it would be strange to view this moment as “Jesus takes the opportunity to teach his disciples something about beauty v. pragmatism.”

    It seems much more likely that Jesus is here moving God’s plan along: He is directly prodding Judas into fulfilling his purpose. This passage is not abstract moral instruction, but is directly tied into the crucifixion.

    So I place a lot of weight on John’s account of things, in which Judas’ motive is transparently insincere, and in which Jesus’ words are directed towards Judas. Judas’ followup action in Matthew and Mark seems to confirm this reading.

    Like

  183. Jeff – thanks for clearing that up.

    I would like to question your statement that natural law teaches us first that we ought to worship God. I’m not the greatest explainer of my thoughts, so please hang in there.

    I would think that first creation (form) and natural law (function) reveals the wondrous things in our world (eg: an olive tree cannot bear puppies) and bears witness that we have a Creator. The material and the invisible laws are organic/integral (both/and) and cannot be separated (eg: together they bear witness to why homosexuality is wrong because it goes against our created form and function).

    The question seems to me to be whether we will recognize creation’s witness to our Creator? If we recognize that someone greater than creation must have made man and everything around us, then our awe/worship is directed to the Creator – if not we will worship ourselves or creation depending upon our response.

    In culture, I think we see a similar response to worship either God or creation. Some people seem to only be able to curse the traffic and man’s incompetence. I often find myself awed that we don’t have more accidents and in turn awed at God’s providence (I’m not saying that I never blow it!).

    IMO, the manners or customs in a culture is not the point. I think we have manners and customs that either show our respect for one another (and a recognition of the differences between the sexes) and our caretaker/steward role of creation. Manners or customs ideally should recognize both form and function, but our sinful natures often miss the mark or are guilty of abuses.

    [Cats definitely seem to have the caretaker role figured out – they seem to think man is supposed to wait on them hand and foot, and give them their every whim (or at least my cousin’s cats do! )…hmm… is that why I like cat jokes?]

    Like

  184. We had an interesting discussion at our Bible study class before Church this morning. We are going through the Gospel of Mathew and studied chapter 17 today. It was on the transfiguration of Christ. There is a whole lot going on theologically in this story. There is an application to death, burial and resurrection here. Let me quote the passage in full:

    “And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah. He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.’ When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, ‘Rise, and have no fear.’ And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.”

    The Gospel of Luke adds this to the account of the transfiguration: “Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.”

    So in Luke we are told what Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus about. There were telling him of his “departure” and that he was going to do this in Jerusalem. It can be assumed that the “departure” was talk of how he was going to die, be buried and then rise again.

    What is interesting here is that God sent Moses and Elijah in their glorified states so the 3 disciples could see them. Here is how the scriptures describe the death and burial of Moses and the departure of Elijah from the earth: Moses death is recorded in Dueteronomy chapter 34. I will quote the first eight versus:

    “Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. And the Lord said to him, ‘This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, I will give it to your offspring. I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.’ So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, and he (God-my addition) buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. The the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.”

    It appears here that God performed the funeral service for Moses face to face so to speak. He chose to bury Moses and then ressurect his remains; it is not recorded how long later his remains were ressurected (Moses burial site and body was never found).

    Now, on to the departure of Elijah. His odd departure is recorded in the second chapter of the book of Kings:

    “Now when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way to Gilgal……When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.’ And Elisha said, ‘Please let there be a double portion of your spirit on me.’ And he said, ‘You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you, but if you do not see me it shall not be so.’ And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more.”

    If you read these three passages of scripture in their entirety (the transfiguration of Christ- both Mathews and Lukes account, Deuteronomy chapters 32-34 and II Kings chapter 2) you will notice many parallels and interesting events which take place: 1) God looks upon death as an important event in a person of faith’s life; 2) The Christian symbolism of death, burial and ressurection is all over these passages; 3) God seems to want to remind his people of this symbolism at each person’s of faith death; 4) A transferring of God’s Spirit always occurs in these passages by a laying on of hands- Jesus touched the disciples in the transfiguration passage, Moses passed on his spirit to Joshua in the Deuternomy passages and God transferred a double portion of Elijah’s spirit to Elisha.

    Now contrast these passages with occurances of God’s judgment in the passages found in the Front Porch Republic article that Darryl linked to. I am not going to do it but you can do it on your own. I think it becomes self-evident that there is something to the symbolism of burial and internment which cremation does not convey.

    Like

  185. Jeff, I was going to say that a point can be perfectly true and valid even it it is not the main point, and that there was a perfect but rejected opportunity for Jesus to embrace a line of reasoning like your organ donation reasoning, but I guess I’ll just let you have the last word. (winky face)

    Like

  186. Jeff, instead of a “major betrayal of the principle of Christian liberty,” it might be one man’s way of interpreting natural law about an issue on which the Bible is silent? But what I find interesting is how one day a 2ker is blamed for making a point about silence and implying that 2k is saying that Christians should sit down and shut up in the public arena. Then the next day when one makes a case against something in a public forum he’s told to be cautious because of his office. I agree that an officer has a special burden on him to be cautious that ordinary members don’t have. But, first, it would be nice to see this sort of help from you when making that point against the Bayly’s on “Sermons to a President.” Maybe you have shown it and I’ve missed it? Second, 2k wants to say that while an extraordinary member has a special burden on him that ordinary members don’t have to hold certain views on things indifferent closer to his chest, that doesn’t mean he mayn’t have his views nor that he mayn’t express them. Personally, what dgh is doing here over burial and tats is way more preferable to what I’ve seen other fellow 2k officers do when coming to publishing their political views.

    But, I have to say, when it comes to the tat question I’m not one much for the imago Dei argument against them (I have a hard time suggesting to good Reformed women that their pierced ears put them in the same league as the freak show on the beach. I also can’t do the same thing to my kids who, like I did, dig those provisional bubble gum tats). Rather than self-mutilation versus non-self-mutilation, I tend to think it’s more an issue of self-expression versus self-comportment. Which has an even broader application beyond merely tats to questions surrounding Christians publically expressing their faith to even more narrow questions surrounding Reformed worship. Briefly put, “wearing it on one’s sleeve” is a vice, keeping it sober, modest and as non-obnoxious as possible is a virtue.

    Like

  187. The grieving and mourning process which the Moses passage reveals has been part of the Jewish heritage since Old Testament times. I would contend that there is something to the death, burial and hope of resurrection which enhances and encourages the grieving and mourning which cremation does not. I’m sure some others may object to that.

    Like

  188. That would be my argument for burial instead of cremation using special revelation. I think the argument from natural reason and general revelation may be a tougher route to take but it certainly could be possible. The flow of the argument may be tougher to follow though. The Front Porch Republic articles seemed to use both special revelation and general revelation but I am reviewing those articles as I speak. I will try to post something in that regard at a later time.

    Like

  189. Zrim,

    I think that passage from Corinthians goes to the heart of the matter in regards to the method Paul used when speaking with unbelievers. The power for salvation is always in the Gospel , not in our persuasive words of wisdom.

    Paul (the Apostle) did reason much with others according to the book of Acts and used that method with speaking with believers and unbelievers alike. So, I would say some things Paul Mananta says are worth listening to. At least that is the conclusion I would come to. My contention with Paul is that he does not ever seem to want to turn the logic and philosopy stuff off. And he is quite aggressive. Sometimes that may be a good thing, other times not so good.

    Like

  190. Those first and second paragraphs may seem like a contradiction but they are actually a paradox and part of Aporetic Christianity. I’m trying to inject some humor again. Hopefully, no one will fly off the handle.

    Like

  191. Zrim, I was indeed critical of the Obama sermon, but it was a rather implicit criticism. I seem to recall trying to help you out at one point.

    To be direct: I think Mr. Bayley treated the President as if he were a parishoner, or else as if Mr. B were appointed prophet to the king. Neither is true; and he stepped over the line.

    Especially given that he was not speaking about one extraordinary circumstance, but rather a list of grievances.

    But what I find interesting is how one day a 2ker is blamed for making a point about silence and implying that 2k is saying that Christians should sit down and shut up in the public arena. Then the next day when one makes a case against something in a public forum he’s told to be cautious because of his office.

    Let’s split some things out here (Oh goody! Bins!).

    In my view, Scripture can and should be used by the magistrate for the purpose of learning wisdom and justice. This is not to the exclusion of general revelation, but simply because Scripture is given, among other things, to make one wise.

    If pc-2kers can live with this, then I’m content.

    I just don’t want pc-2k to tell the Christian magistrate that because general revelation is sufficient, his appeal to Scripture is a denial of the goodness of creation; or that the magistrate may not attempt to read and apply Scripture because Scripture is given to the institution of the church and not to the individual.

    On the flip side, I’m not opposed to elders reasoning from general revelation — say, in giving advice about money matters, or counseling in relationships, or more.

    But when that advice goes from “this is my best read on general revelation” to “it’s wrong to do X”, then we’ve moved from advice to binding of consciences.

    It’s a question of whether the one giving the advice is granting the other guy space to disagree without painting him as having transgressed.

    And here, it seems as if I can’t be in favor of organ donation, or open to cremation, without being “Gnostic” or “treating the body shabbily” or an “unreliable Evangelical” or some such.

    What kind of liberty is that?

    And in fact, it’s a sort of scary kind, for now, I’m being held accountable not to Scripture (which anyone may read), but to “the natural law” (which is *still* unavailable on Amazon).

    If it helps: I hope to be buried, some years hence. I just have a hard time swallowing the idea that someone who is cremated has, somehow, broken God’s law.

    Like

  192. A few other things I failed to mention about those passages of scripture are as follows: 1) Notice in 2Kings chapter 2 that Elijah and Elisha separted the waters and passed through them on two occasions before Elijah was taken into heaven. This has to have something to do with covenant and baptism; or, death and resurrection. 2) The passing on of the faith and spirit from generation to generation takes place near the death of the father figure in all these passages. The ritual of death, burial and internment seems to be integral to the passing on of the faith. Cremation and the destruction of the body does not symbolically convey the same message.

    Like

  195. From the article at the Front Porch Republic the writer says this:

    ” From Adam to the Beloved Disciple John every saint who falls asleep in the Lord finds a grave as a bed. (Moreover, cremation is reserved in the Old Testament for the wicked and apostate: see Josh. 7:25, 2 Kgs. 23:20, Amos 2:1.) The only time where one of the Lord’s anointed is unfortunately cremated (King Saul, defiled by the Philistines) – it is through burial that his remains finally rest in peace. Additionally this hard and fast “orthopraxy” also correlates to a theology, an “orthodoxia.”

    Josh. 7:25 says this: “And Joshua said, ‘Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord brings trouble on you today.’ And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his burning anger. Therefore, to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor.”

    This is all in reference to the sin of Achan who transgressed God’s covenant by taking some of the devoted things; they stole them and lied and put them among their own belongings. This caused the people of Israel to not be able to stand agaist their enemies, because they came to be devoted for destruction (Josh. 7: 10-12).

    2Kings 23:19-20 says this: “And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the Lord to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.”

    The apostate and heretical priests were burned with fire and their bodies were desecrated as God’s judgement upon them. This was part of Josiah’s reforms. All of chapter 23 is worth reading. The symbolism of fire is throughout the chapter and represents God’s wrath and judgement.

    And lastly Amos 2:1-3 states the following: “Thus says the Lord: ‘For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. So I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet; I will cut off the ruler from its midst, and will kill all its princes with him.”

    This passage seems to have more to do with respecting God ordained authority then anything else. I do not know who this king of Edom was but even if he was a wicked king, God’s anger was kindled because the Moabites burned his bones to lime. This obviously was a violation of how a king’s remains were to be disposed of. It brought about God’s wrath.

    After reading these passages I wonder why anyone would want to defend cremation in any shape, way or form. It certainly does bind my conscience and I would not want my relatives and family to cremate my remains. It is my hope and belief that God is capable of sustaining my faith as I make diligent use of his means of grace and that my posterity would honor my faith by a proper burial. And I would hope the Gospel would be proclaimed loud and clear at my funeral so that faith would be passed on to my relatives and family that remained. After that I could care less if I was in an unmarked grave or not.

    Like

  196. Jeff, first, you’re right, you have been implicitly critical of the Bayly’s glorified political speeches. Sorry, I’ll amend that point accordingly, and thanks for the help. (But I wonder if I might parlay my contrition into some points about implicit versus explicit in the GR/SR discussion and how implicit doesn’t mean deficient?)

    I just don’t want pc-2k to tell the Christian magistrate that because general revelation is sufficient, his appeal to Scripture is a denial of the goodness of creation…

    Well, I understand. Every Reformed Christian should be uneasy with the idea that he denies creation’s very goodness. But when one explicitly denies that general revelation is sufficient to govern civil life it’s hard not to wonder if this betrays a denial of the very goodness of creation. To the extent that the dictum is the mirror expression of special revelation being sufficient to govern ecclesial life, were this to be denied, it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t betray presuppositions about the infallible inspiration of holy writ. More cause for Reformed discomfort, to be sure.

    But to the larger point about binding consciences by speaking forthrightly on matters indifferent, I’m thinking that you’re overstating things. I get that you don’t like some of the implications about “Gnostic tendencies” or “unreliable evangelicalness” in your views on cremation. But I’m not so sure any of that actually rises to the level of binding your conscience. I think it may just be a way to strongly disagree on a matter indifferent. At least, when I say that tattoos are more an issue of self-expression than self-mutilation and its defense and practice betrays an underlying evangelness amongst Reformed believers, I’m not at all wanting to bind anyone’s conscience about how he interprets tattoo-i-osity or even whether one has them or not. I’m just trying to make a point about it as it relates to a more consistent Reformed ethos. If it helps, my own wife has a (modest and discreet) tattoo. I make the same point to her, but I get interrupted as being more silly than binding.

    Like

  197. I should have put that last sentence this way: I could care less if my kids decided to put me in a marked or unmarked grave. That is for them to decide, not me.

    Like

  198. Zrim,

    Thanks.

    John, I very much appreciate the arguments you’ve been putting up. I’m not fully persuaded, but I can see the weight of your position.

    If I were to rate issues important to me, I would say that organ donation is the most important of them.

    Like

  199. John,

    Why be so humble man, I want nothing less than a pyramid! I don’t think it would be too much to ask. Like you, I won’t stipulate whether or not it should be marked, cause I’d hate for my kids to think that I was domineering even after death.

    Like

  200. Thanks Jeff, you are always gracious in your comments and I was not pointing my arguments at you specifically. I certainly do not agree with what you have said, but I also realize that it is not always possible to provide a burial service in every death of someone who has biblical faith. So, I would not want people to look back at funerals they have been involved in with family members and bring them under any kind of condemnation or unsettled conscience. I do think a funeral service is an important event and often we do not put as much thought into it as we should. I think that Craig Parton article could be a good resource for anyone who is arranging a funeral for a family member. I also think local churches should spend more time thinking how they could be of more help to family members who have lost a loved one to death. They could also participate more in the funeral process since the scriptures do seem to put a lot of weight in how to despose of the dead.

    Like

  201. Jed,

    That was good and it made me laugh. Perhaps I am getting a bit too serious about the topic but I am getting more passionate about it the more I read and think about the issue.

    My oldest son and I are kind of at odds with one another these days so hopefully if I die soon he won’t arrange the funeral. He might want to cremate me out of spite. Hopefully, he won’t come across this blog site. I really should not say things like this but for all I know he might take it rightly too. Life certainly is highly unpredictable.

    Like

  202. John wrote: “…I would not want people to look back at funerals they have been involved in with family members and bring them under any kind of condemnation or unsettled conscience.”

    John, I have had similar concerns – especially with unbelievers, so I usually keep my thoughts to myself. I am thankful for this topic and the commenters here. It has helped me begin to recognize how much I have absorbed from culture around me and how ignorant I am on the subject. I would like to have a better understanding of general revelation so I could hopefully offer better input when asked (unfortunately, when one has buried several family members, people tend to think you should be an expert).

    If the light of nature is what is universally written upon our hearts, it seems that there should be things that we would all commonly recognize about the burial of the dead. I keep wondering why this subject is not as plain as the truth about abortion or homosexuality. We can explain them in the light of nature, why is caring for the dead so hard to explain in the light of nature?

    When I looked at my floundering thoughts and comments, I wondered that my language is part of the problem and that there is a danger in using technical language when we talk about human beings because it begins to blur or change the way we view mankind. In talking about death, I was using terms like corpse, the deceased, or the remains instead of the humanizing word of body or person. Words do matter and it’s easy for me to forget that. A parallel example might be in abortion, where we use the technical term fetus instead of the humanizing term infant. In abortion, the personhood of an infant is denied. Are we doing a similar thing in death?

    I kept sliding into a gnostic view of the body while trying to understand what general revelation might say. I had swallowed the easy explanation that when someone dies they are no longer there. That is true, yet it is not true. Their body is still here and it is both a person’s body and soul that makes them human – I think we still instinctively know this even if it has become blurred, muffled, or muted by a culture steeped in pragmatism and utilitarianism. We still know we are dealing with a human being – not trash that needs disposal.

    We used to understand the importance of preparing a person’s body for viewing and burial. We used to understand the importance of viewing the body of the person who died. It was a communal way of saying our last farewell and sharing in the grief of the mourners closest to the person who died. Death had solemn rituals that recognized mortality – both theirs and our own. Death could be integrated into the fabric of our lives and not compartmentalized.

    Burial conveys a sense of care, respect, and recognition that the person who died is human. It treats the body as a still precious person. Perhaps burial could be compared to a parent tucking their child into bed for the last time. There is something good and right about giving a person a permanent resting place in the hushed setting of a cemetery. There is wisdom in returning to the cemetery to care for their grave as time continues to pass by – it is part of caring for the dead until the resurrection and a reminder that we will share their fate – we too will die.

    Our culture’s technology and niche marketing have worked together to tell us our rituals are out-dated and offer us a pseudo removal of death’s sting. We can bypass preparing granny’s body, avoid the discomfort in looking at her dead corpse, cremate her and put her ashes in an urn, hold a celebration of life party, and then choose whether we want to keep her urn in the attic or spread her ashes to the four winds. We can move quickly through the process, forget about it, and move on. Death doesn’t have to be more than a blip on our radar screen and any connection to our own mortality can be quickly muted. Mourning can be relegated to grief groups and psychologists. The impact of death is something to be cured rather than accepted and integrated into society.

    Our culture’s pragmatic and utilitarian view of life promotes organ donations from the dead to save or prolong the lives of others and euthanasia as a merciful way to end lives of suffering (both for the sufferer and those who care for them). The trajectory on these practices is not good. In our dehumanizing culture, our bodies are becoming like old cars that can be stripped for their spare parts when their usefulness has ended. Our abhorrence for suffering and our solution of euthanasia opens a door for a world where choosing assisted suicide is a duty for the weak, sick, or disabled among us. It spares us from learning what it means to be human and the inconvenience, discomfort, and responsibilities of caring for our neighbors.

    I think the topics of organ donation and euthanasia are the hardest subjects to object to (in general revelation terms) because both seem to appeal to mercy with good intentions to alleviate suffering. I keep thinking that the objections should have something to do with the fact that humanity is created in God’s image, life is a sacred gift, we should accept the limits and boundaries of being human, and the fact that suffering of all kinds and degrees is part of human life. I cannot help wondering that we are tempting God when we purposely mutilate dead bodies or end lives according to our own wisdom. For what it’s worth, I’m becoming more and more uncomfortable with these practices.

    If anyone has any ideas, I would appreciate help. I’m sure I’m missing much here.

    Like

  203. Oops… I meant to rephrase this sentence before posting:

    I cannot help wondering that we are tempting God when we purposely mutilate dead bodies or end lives according to our own wisdom.

    It should read:

    I cannot help wondering that we are tempting God when we purposely mutilate dead bodies (and then justify it with a pragmatic statement like God will raise the dead and can replace our body parts) or end lives according to our own wisdom

    Like

  207. DGH: If I recall correctly, Achilles honors Patroclus with a funeral pyre in the Illiad. So Greek culture considered it an honor. Let me see … Yes: Book XXIII of the Illiad describes Patroclus’ funeral pyre in classic Homeric detail (read: TMI).

    Viking culture also approved of funeral pyres.

    And Roman.

    But again, cremation is less important to me than the organ donation issue.

    If y’all want to say that cremation is wrong, be my guest; but if you want to tell people that receiving organs makes them party to dishonoring a body, or that donating organs is breaking God’s law, then I’m going to put my foot down. You need a Scriptural basis for binding peoples’ consciences.

    And it’s not a pragmatic argument, Lily. It’s an argument from charity. If I have a body part that can help someone else, it is right for me to be willing to give it.

    The argument that my dead corpse is no longer my home is merely a defense against the notion that I’m somehow “dishonoring” myself to give in that way. *I’m not there anymore*! That’s an eminently Christian, and not Gnostic, idea.

    Like

  208. Jeff, Antigone suggests a different reading of Greek culture. The play doesn’t proceed without the question of honoring a brother who has not been buried.

    Anyway, the point of the post was about gen. rev. You have hung around here long enough that 2k is keen on protecting liberty of conscience. I don’t know why you need to keep insisting on it.

    The point is also one of wisdom. Some of us would think it unwise to donate an organ precisely for what such an act communicates about body parts and mechanistic conceptions of the human form.

    And when you say it is “right” for you to give your body parts away, that suggests that it is “wrong” not to.

    Can’t we live in a realm of wisdom for a change, instead or immediately running to the Bible either for vindication or condemnation?

    Like

  209. Lily,

    I found your post to be very moving. I too am a bit confused on how to argue the issue (common sense burial) from natural reason and general revelation. I guess the way to go about that would be to glean thoughts from those who do not share our beliefs from special revelation but who seem to be thinking clearly and sanely about the issue.

    Many are saying these days that American culture is seeped in gnosticism and it is the majority report in the common kingdom today. We are bombarded with it all day long. It confuses a lot of thinking but I suppose many do resist this who day not share our beliefs. It becomes very confusing, I think, to try to sort it all out. I think Darryl has probably had more practice than most in doing the type of research he does for the books he has written. He gets to sample many different points of view from the general revelation and natural reason sphere. Any thoughts about that Darryl? How would you argue for common sense burial without using special revelation? Could you bring that all together for us? You have been touching on it in your posts a bit but I still am confused in how to bring it all together or how you would go about doing it.

    Darryl said: “I feel your conscience” Now I am not sure how to take that and am never sure whether you are being sarcastic or serious. I am taking it to mean that you have prepared funerals for family member and maybe wished you had done it differently. Am I correct with that interpretation?

    I also noticed I spelled disposed wrong in an earlier post. It was bothering me so I mentioned it.

    I also wanted to make a few more comments about the passage in the last 3 chapters of Deuteronomy where God buries Moses. The whole of chapter 34 is almost poetic and extremely personal and intimate. I know that passage of scripture is controversial and many higher critics say it should not be included in the book because how could somebody know exactly what happened there when Moses was dead. The whole imagery just baffles one that God would be so intimate and personal with a human being like that. It is like someone deeply caring for his own son and comforting him with some of the tragedies that has occured in his life. Very moving passage of scripture.

    Like

  210. Jeff,

    I also wrote that organ donation “…appeals to mercy with good intentions to alleviate suffering” (regarding my post in question) and wrote that “I am compassionate towards organ donation because it can save the lives others” (in a different post). I am still wrestling with the subject and think it is an argument not only from charity, but utilitarianism. My questions to myself about the subject make me wonder if the arguments from charity help mask the devil masquerading as an angel of light? And as you pointed out, I could look at it as pragmatic way to dispose of my body parts after my death. Thanks for adding another aspect to my wrestling with the question – augh!

    I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with organ donation because of it’s trajectory in our pragmatic and utilitarian steeped culture. For better or worse, the trajectory course made me question the entire practice and wonder about the utilitarianism that resides behind the practice and if it falls in the category of tempting God when we think that it’s no big deal because God will replace the organs in the resurrection.

    I would ask you to think harder on the truth that when we die – we are no longer there. I think it is true, but not the whole story. When my family members died, they were not there, but I could still see them and touch them. I still had part of them with me. The fact that I believe in the resurrection of the body should raise questions about how I treat the body after the soul leaves it.

    If the body is important enough to God to resurrect it, then I think I need to question what we do with a dead body. It is God who places such importance on the body to resurrect it. If I see the body as unimportant then it does fall into the category of gnosticism. I hope this makes sense, I’m not the greatest at making my thoughts clear in comment boxes.

    Like

  212. John,

    Thanks for replying. I’m with you on putting DGH on the spot to share what he thinks is clear in general revelation. What say you, dear DGH?

    I hadn’t thought about how our culture is steeped in gnosticism and appreciate your point. I hadn’t thought about the way we are bombarded by it daily in our culture. One doesn’t even have to think long or hard about it to come up with a multitude of examples of the ways we treat our bodies as unimportant or ours to do with as we please.

    Wouldn’t it be great if we had answers for all of our thorny questions? It seems that God thinks it best to not answer all of our questions (especially not all at once!) and to leave other things as a mystery. It seems that he thinks it best for us to be content with the slow process of growth in discipleship and the rhythm of daily repentance and faith in Christ. My impatient soul too often chaffs at this process.

    Like

  213. Jeff,

    Another thought and I’m not being ornery here, but trying to ask an honest question because I think I may have missed your point in your last answer. You wrote:

    “The argument that my dead corpse is no longer my home is merely a defense against the notion that I’m somehow “dishonoring” myself to give in that way. *I’m not there anymore*!”

    Isn’t that some kind of dualism? Am I no longer body and soul because I am dead?

    Like

  214. zB: This is one of those “please read carefully” posts.

    DGH: Jeff, Antigone suggests a different reading of Greek culture. The play doesn’t proceed without the question of honoring a brother who has not been buried.

    There’s no different reading suggested here. Creon refuses to bury what’s-his-name. That burial could easily have been in the ground or cremation (notice in the Illiad that cremation is called “burial”); but no, Creon leaves the body out to rot above ground for the purpose of bringing shame to it. Creon’s action is similar to Achilles’ directive that Hector be left out for the dogs to tear apart.

    You have to stretch the taffy to a thread to find any hint in Antigone that cremation is shameful.

    DGH: Anyway, the point of the post was about gen. rev. You have hung around here long enough that 2k is keen on protecting liberty of conscience. I don’t know why you need to keep insisting on it.

    Well, because I think there’s something that you don’t see about your arguments from “natural law.” Two things, actually.

    First, I think that perhaps you have not come to grips with the fact that the Natural Law is the law of God no less than Scripture is. So that to disobey the NL (for example, by worshiping false gods) is to bring condemnation on oneself.

    So when you begin to speculate dogmatically on “the NL teaches this” or “the NL teaches that”, you’re actually making declarations about what is *sin*.

    I think you had hoped that if we can argue from NL instead of Scripture, that we could avoid the problem of binding consciences, but it doesn’t work.

    The only way to give freedom is to, well, give freedom: to allow people room for disagreement on matters that are unclear.

    And that brings us to the second point: When you begin to speak of what the Natural Law teaches, you have no controls in place to prevent yourself (or someone else) from taking personal preference and dressing it up in a Natural Law argument. Since the NL is not available on Amazon.com, it is impossible to *prove* that such-and-such is truly taught in the Natural Law. It’s just opinion all the way down.

    Now notice that the situation is different for an individual coram deo — his conscience alternately condemns or defends him, and he is accountable for that condemnation (the first and second uses of the Law).

    Nor am I speaking of the magistrate, who makes decisions — perhaps even using natural law — that are rules for behavior and not rules for the conscience.

    But here I’m speaking of one man staking out a position on the Natural Law and trying to make it ethically normative for all men.

    Historically, the chaos that resulted was the impetus for Kant’s attempt to ground ethics in “pure reason” (an out-of-the-frying-pan moment in philosophy).

    DGH: And when you say it is “right” for you to give your body parts away, that suggests that it is “wrong” not to.

    Not at all. It is right for me to give my wife backrubs instead of chocolate. That implies nothing about other men and their wives.

    DGH: Can’t we live in a realm of wisdom for a change, instead or immediately running to the Bible either for vindication or condemnation?

    Living in the realm of wisdom means letting folk disagree without passing judgment on their opinions. If you want to lay down the (natural) law, so to speak, and make things a matter of being “Gnostic” and “unreliable Evangelicalism”, then it’s off to the Bible we go.

    Let’s review the first inning. All of this started with my opining that cremation is not a wrong option for Christians. The discussion since then has been you trying to persuade me that it is. Whether it’s your desire or not, you’re laying down an ethical prohibition, one that has the force of “the natural law forbids us to…” — which again, is a matter of sin.

    And those kinds of claims should be tested against Scripture, IMO.

    I get that you want to be able to talk about wisdom and allow people to have differences of opinions on things not laid out in Scripture. I just don’t think you realize the force that a Natural Law argument carries. If we take the NL seriously, as a reflection of the decalogue and part of the revealed will of God, then NL arguments ought to be binding.

    Like

  215. Lily: I would ask you to think harder on the truth that when we die – we are no longer there. I think it is true, but not the whole story. When my family members died, they were not there, but I could still see them and touch them. I still had part of them with me. The fact that I believe in the resurrection of the body should raise questions about how I treat the body after the soul leaves it…

    JRC: The argument that my dead corpse is no longer my home is merely a defense against the notion that I’m somehow “dishonoring” myself to give in that way. *I’m not there anymore*!

    Lily: Isn’t that some kind of dualism? Am I no longer body and soul because I am dead?

    As I see it, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Historic Reformed Christianity has been clear that Christians go straight into God’s presence at death, awaiting the resurrection (1 Thess 4). So no, I am no longer body and soul when I die.

    This doesn’t mean that our dead corpses are no different from a toaster oven — the reason that we have open-casket viewings is that seeing the body reminds us of the relationship we have with the person.

    But the person him- or herself is no longer there. We can talk to the body, or dress it up, but those things are for our benefit. The person is long past caring, being in the presence of the Lord.

    Again: a burial can be a *sign* of respect and honor for the person; it can and should be an expression of our hope in the resurrection to come.

    BUT

    It is not necessarily the only way to sign these things. Just because a proper burial is good, does not mean that a cremation is bad.

    Like

  216. I’m mulling over the distinction between presumably unalterable “natural law” and less-binding cultural norms.

    Jeff, if your daughter decided to have her wedding in Yeazel’s funeral home with she and the bridesmaids dressed in goth and Marilyn Manson giving your daughter away, would you say that’s OK because wedding ceremonies are non-absolute cultural products?

    DGH, are you saying that proper funeral rites – at least broadly speaking – are written on our conscience or woven into the fabric of nature? I’m not setting a rhetorical trap – express it some other way if these categories are inaccurate.

    Like

  217. Jeff,

    I appreciate your patience and re-read your answer several times, but you are losing me in saying that you are no longer both body and soul when you die.

    Regarding: “…to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” I’m not sure it’s safe to separate that partial verse from it’s context in 2 Cor. 5 and other passages [The dead are spoken of as being asleep by both Jesus (eg: Matt 9:24, Jn 11, etc.) and Paul (1 Thess. 4:14-18) or Paul’s metaphorical usage in 1 Cor. 5:3 “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed….”) and use it to support a view of death with the body and soul being an either/or situation.

    I don’t understand how death changes that we are both body and soul. If I look at human life in this world as a both/and, death as an either/or, and the resurrection as a both/and – it still looks to me like there is some kind of dualism in this view of death.

    If it is an either/or situation, I still don’t see how we can negate the importance of the body and burial because God chose to bury Moses. I looked at several translations and they all say “God buried him (Moses)” and the word “him” means a person and it requires both a body and a soul to be a person. At any rate, since God chose burial, I don’t think it’s wise to choose otherwise.

    Like

  218. MM: Jeff, if your daughter decided to have her wedding in Yeazel’s funeral home with she and the bridesmaids dressed in goth and Marilyn Manson giving your daughter away, would you say that’s OK because wedding ceremonies are non-absolute cultural products?

    No, I wouldn’t. She’s underage. *rimshot*

    But seriously, I would not say that. Weddings are non-absolute cultural products, BUT the cultural signs say something *within that culture.*

    A wedding as you describe, within our culture, would suggest (a) that the wedding was more important than the marriage, and (b) that the desires of the daughter were more important than the comfort of the majority of her guests (I know the potential guest list, and they would definitely get a negative message).

    So while the signs themselves have situated meaning, but within a particular situation — they have that meaning.

    NOW

    Suppose my daughter were of age, and in a culture in which Goth was normative, the “uniform” of that culture, so to speak. Pauley Perrette World, for example.

    In that case, the meaning of the signs would be quite different, and the answer to your question would be different. Except for the Marilyn Manson part.

    Now before anyone pops out the “R” word (“relativism”), please notice that ethical norms are not relative here. What is relative is the meaning of signs and symbols. But charity — the Law of God, no less — constrains us to use those signs and symbols that convey love for our wives, our daughters, neighbors, etc.

    In some cases, the Law of God places absolute norms. Murder is not consistent with charity, period. Nor adultery. Nor theft, nor covetousness or false witness, nor dishonoring of parents.

    But within those absolute norms, we have to reason out whether a particular action amounts to, say, dishonoring of parents. (“Dad, I want Manson to give me away.”)

    Like

  219. Jeff, the point was that burial was a form of honor, not burying a form of dishonor, which was then a counterpoint to your comment about burial not reflecting honor in Greek culture. If it didn’t, then Antigone sure got worked up over nothing.

    It was also to suggest that for you — now I’m egging you on — if the body was food for starving dogs, it might be okay.

    Like

  220. DGH: Jeff, the point was that burial was a form of honor, not burying a form of dishonor, which was then a counterpoint to your comment about burial not reflecting honor in Greek culture.

    Oh, no. I didn’t say or mean that. I said that cremation in the Illiad was a way of showing honor; not that burial was a way of showing dishonor. It’s fairly clear that the way of showing dishonor was to leave the body uncared for in any way. In fact, I seem to recall an extended discussion in the Odyssey with someone — Agamemnon? — whose body is lying unburied, and the situation has to be rectified. Man, my memory’s getting fuzzy.

    About the starving dogs: I think we agree that Creon’s action was intended to dishonor the body.

    Like

  221. Jeff, if I am to read carefully don’t you think you should too? Did I mention natural law in the original post? What was the title? Common sense? I am not a NL theorist. I am someone who thinks, along with the Reformed confessions, that God reveals in two books and so I am dead set against biblicism (not saying here that you are a biblicist).

    But I think you have biblicized NL to try to assert that it is the same thing or as binding as the Bible. If the light of nature tells us that using Roberts Rules at GA or holding public worship at 10:30 am is the way to go, no one’s conscience is being bound. I really do think you have to get this conscience binding thing right and it does start with what the Bible reveal and DOES NOT reveal.

    Let me also defend the idea that somethings may be morally okay but still unwise. I believe Paul makes a similar point in 1 Cor. 8. But you seem — is it because you view everything through the lens of Scripture — to think that everything is moral all the way down — dare I say plumbing? So I guess it should not surprise me that you think of NL in the same way. I have not appealed to NL, but to the light of nature. But even if I do, I do not think it is binding in the same way as Scripture, if only because it is not as clear.

    That does not mean that I think it is not sufficiently clear. And here I again detect a debating tactic on your part. You do not think Gen. Rev. is sufficient for running common affairs. And now you think it’s binding on consciences? Please!!

    Like

  222. Michael, I’m arguing for the light of nature and an intuitive sense of the order and fittingness of things. As such, destroying the body of a loved one does not appear to be an appropriate way to dispose of it. I’m only talking about burials, though I’ve been to enough funeral services where good sense suggest we should have only had to go to the burial.

    Like

  224. Lily, I appreciate your consideration also.

    It is true that the Bible uses the term “sleep” several times as a euphemism for death. As John points out, this term meant physical death (John 11.11-14).

    [And sometimes it is confusing. In Matt 9, is the girl physically dead, or is she in a coma? Unlike in John 11, Jesus seems to deny that she’s dead.]

    And yet, it is understood that in our physical death, we are absent from the body.

    2 Cor 5.1-10 is worth contemplation. Take a moment, if you would, to notice the phrases “to be absent from” (εκδημησαι) and “to be present” (ενδημησαι) in vv. 6,8

    The word “absent” is literally, “to emigrate”, to dwell outside of.

    And this is the ground for Paul’s confidence. He does not fear for his earthly tent to be destroyed. That for him is freedom. It matters not what *happens to his body* in death (v. 1), but rather what he does *while in his body* in life (v. 10).

    And there’s your contrast with Gnosticism. Gnosticism said that our flesh is weak and corrupt and of no account, so that we need not care about the deeds we do while in the body. Paul says, No, we must give account for the deeds we do in the body.

    [I don’t take Paul’s opponents in 2 Cor to be proto-Gnostics, but am speaking more generally]

    But after death, if Paul’s earthly tent is destroyed, he has literally “emigrated from the body and are living in the Lord.”

    This is an important part of Christian doctrine, whatever else we may say about the relative merits of burial and cremation.

    Thus the Confession: The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none. — WCoF 33.1.

    —

    Skip this if it is too disturbing. I want to make a biological point.

    Some of the carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen that make up our bodies ends up in other people’s bodies. From bacterial decomposition to feeding of insects, and through the carbon and nitrogen cycles, our bodies literally become scattered across the ecosystem, and ultimately get incorporated for a time into other living things.

    When we are resurrected, God is not going to be hindered by this fact; He affirms that we return to dust. No, he has new bodies in store for us.

    —

    Lily: I still don’t see how we can negate the importance of the body and burial because God chose to bury Moses. I looked at several translations and they all say “God buried him (Moses)” and the word “him” means a person and it requires both a body and a soul to be a person. At any rate, since God chose burial, I don’t think it’s wise to choose otherwise.

    Certainly, Moses’ burial indicates that burial is a good option. But it says nothing about other possible options. Moses was buried on a mountain, but this does not mean that we should all be buried on a mountain, right? Likewise here: Moses was buried, but this does not require us all to be buried. As I tell my math students (in a different context): “An example is not a proof.”

    Like

  225. Darryl,

    Your explanation of biblicizing natural law was helpful. I have heard people argue from Jeff’s perspective a lot of times, ie., equating the law written on our hearts (natural law) with the ten commandments. Also you distinguish between natural law and the light of nature. I really have not heard that before. I must admit that those concepts can get confusing?

    Like

  226. DGH’s post: So could it be that the light of nature is clear even where Scripture refuses to say “thou shalt” (or for the King James challenged, “you should”)?

    DGH: Did I mention natural law in the original post?

    I’ll go with “Yes”, for $200.

    I’m not sure why you are trying to distinguish the “light of nature” and “natural law”, but it’s certainly a new distinction for me. Both are synonyms for General Revelation.

    DGH: If the light of nature tells us that using Roberts Rules at GA or holding public worship at 10:30 am is the way to go, no one’s conscience is being bound. I really do think you have to get this conscience binding thing right and it does start with what the Bible reveal and DOES NOT reveal.

    But the light of nature tells us neither thing. There’s a world of difference between “THE way to go” and “a fitting way to go, among others.”

    Which is why our service is not at 10:30.

    You have tied “binding” to what Scripture reveals. And in an ideal world, that would be exactly right — we *ought* to bind people’s consciences only to what Scripture reveals.

    But in the world we live, people bind other people’s consciences on all manner of things. “Thou shalt not play cards.” “Thou shalt not drive an SUV.” Those kinds of commands are (an attempt to be) binding of the conscience, regardless of whether the Scripture teaches it or not.

    Robert’s Rules are not presented as morally binding, but as a baseline practice in order to achieve decency and order (which *are* morally binding).

    —

    But none of that has to do with this post. Here, you have presented burial as “THE way Christians ought to do things.” That’s a *binding* of people’s consciences, every bit as much as “Christians should not dance.”

    This is plain and unarguable, I think.

    DGH: So I guess it should not surprise me that you think of NL in the same way [as moral all the way down]. I have not appealed to NL, but to the light of nature. But even if I do, I do not think it is binding in the same way as Scripture, if only because it is not as clear.

    This is very confused, partly because of this distinction between NL and “the light of nature.” But also because the natural law is God’s law, and whatever it does in fact say, is binding on us.

    You are concerned because NL is less clear than Scripture; but that’s a problem of knowing the NL, not a problem of whether or not it is normative.

    But again, this has naught to do with this post, for you seem to believe that the “light of nature” is clear enough on burial that you can tell others, “don’t do it.”

    And I ask, “Where is that written?”

    —

    DGH: Let me also defend the idea that somethings may be morally okay but still unwise. I believe Paul makes a similar point in 1 Cor. 8.

    I’m open to this. Just because I believe that ethics frames our lives, does not mean that I believe that all issues are yes/no or right/wrong. Recall that I’m big on liberty, right?

    Like

  227. Jeff,

    I am sorry I gave the impression that I did not understand that the body and soul were temporarily separated at death. I am about as clear as mud somedays. I think the point that I am troubled by is your view of the body in death and I mucked it up trying to make my point about both body and soul being redeemed. I know you know both are redeemed, which is probably why I’m confused by your views. My focus was on that wholeness.

    In attempting to use an either/or term, I was poorly trying to get at the fact that the soul and body belong together to make a full person (eg: God buried him.) With Paul’s metaphorical usage, I was trying to get at how he separates the soul and body in time and space, but it is still whole.

    In the passages about sleep, I am aware that being asleep meant physical death, but I thought is was self-evident that when our bodies wake up, body and soul no longer separate. I keep seeing the wholeness of body and soul and the resurrection in those passages.

    It seems to me that 2 Cor 5:1-10 makes the promise about the redemption of our bodies clear. I see this passage more as a matter of not fearing death and looking forward to the resurrection than not caring what happens to our bodies. (eg; For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life) I haven’t a clue how God resurrects our redeemed bodies and changes them to bear the heavenly image of man (Christ), but he does and I am thankful that I’m not stuck with this sinful nature forever.

    You wrote: “It matters not what *happens to his body* in death (v. 1), but rather what he does *while in his body* in life (v. 10).” I agree with you on the former if you mean we decompose to nothingness and God is able to recover every nano-particle of us, but I’m not comfortable with the way “rather” is linked to the latter. Add verse 9 that plainly states: “So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.” and then follow with verse 10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

    Now the crux of the debate about cremation and burial is tied to the deeds done in the body (v 10). What I choose to do with a loved one’s body in death is important. It is a deed done in my body. It is here that the gnostic charge comes into play. To think that how I treat a dead body or what I do with it is not important is gnostic. It is a deed done in the body and one I am answerable for.

    And… as for: “An example is not proof.” I think my God card trumps your hand of man’s wisdom any day of the week – right? 🙂

    Like

  228. I haven’t a clue how God resurrects our redeemed bodies and changes them to bear the heavenly image of man (Christ), but he does and I am thankful that I’m not stuck with this sinful nature forever.

    Amen.

    Like

  229. John, I am particularly concerned about matters of conscience practically and doctrinally. Conscience seems awfully close to the doctrine of justification. But my line was an homage to The Wire, where “I feel you” means I understand.

    Like

  230. Jeff, I don’t think you have read the post fairly at all. I think most readers would be hard pressed to conclude from the original that cremation IS WRONG. Many would reasonably conclude cremation IS FOOLISH. Is your conscience pricked?

    Like

  231. But none of that has to do with this post. Here, you have presented burial as “THE way Christians ought to do things.” That’s a *binding* of people’s consciences, every bit as much as “Christians should not dance”…But none of that has to do with this post. Here, you have presented burial as “THE way Christians ought to do things”…But again, this has naught to do with this post, for you seem to believe that the “light of nature” is clear enough on burial that you can tell others, “don’t do it.”

    Jeff, I remain confused as to why you think anyone is binding consciences here about burial. If I tell you that playing in the street is unwise according to the light of nature, is that binding your conscience? I don’t think so. I think it’s just pretty sound advice.

    Now, once someone makes Christian burial plans a stipulation for attending or teaching at a Christian school or church, or a church order where elders are to promote “godly funerary customs,” then I think you may begin suggesting a form of legalism. Until then, it remains one man’s opinion about how to treat a dead body, the way a Baptist says drinking and smoking are unwise ways to treat a living body. I like to think I know legalism when I see it. Maybe I’m missing it, but so far I don’t see Darryl speaking about funerary customs the way Baptists talk about substance use…or Reformed & Presbyterians talk about education.

    Like

  232. Darryl, I’m glad to know your intent in the matter. It’s helpful.

    Let me ask this, then: If you are not trying to say that cremation is WRONG, then why do you argue that it is an offense against nature?

    Nor do I think cremation makes any sense as a fitting way to treat the human body.
    So why would incinerating a body be any less offensive? So could it be that the light of nature is clear…?

    For it is not nature who takes offense, of course, but nature’s God.

    I’m puzzled as to how an action can be an offense to God but not wrong.

    Like

  233. Zrim, I don’t view the way that Baptists talk about substance use as benign. Nor the way that some P&Rs talk about education. Remember the public school debate with Elder Hoss?

    You seem to draw the line at coercion: it’s not legalism until we make a rule.

    But Paul seems to draw the line at social coercion, judgmentalism: So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. (Rom 14.22).

    Granted, I’ll take judgmentalism over rule-making any day; but the one is the soft form of the other.

    Like

  234. Jeff, I sympathize. But at this point it still just seems like an exploration over a thing indifferent. Plus, views on funerary customs seem hard to make into ways to burden and yoke the living the way substance use and education can be, so it just feels like you’re really jumping the gun. However, I will concede that the potential is certainly there, since legalism is really just a set of principles that can be applied to any thing indifferent. So far, though, I don’t see you being coerced.

    Like

  235. Jeff, did I really say “offense against nature” or are you putting words in my mouth? My point was that it is intuitively unbecoming to disfigure a body, especially cremation in the case of a dead body. That’s not to say that some circumstances might require cremation, just as some circumstances might require an abortion (saving the life of a mother). But intuitively it is wrong.

    As for offending God, I’m not sure how to answer this. Do you actually live like this, that everything is either right or wrong, either an offense against God or not? I don’t because I think there are limits to what God has revealed in Scripture regarding what is right and wrong and that for which I am accountable as a matter of conscience. Aside from those laws, I see the rest as matters of what is better or worse, with not best or worst, because God has not revealed the ideal spiritual culture.

    Take the example of defecation. It is not pretty. It is something we do in private and know not to do it in public. It is something that each of us may clean up after differently. I think there are likely better and worse ways of doing such cleaning. The French use bidets, the English are content with toilets and toilet paper. Do you really want me to think that God takes offense at the way I tidy up? But he did create us with the need to pass waste. And we do give potty training to children. I’m just not sure it’s part of rearing them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

    Like

  236. Jeff,

    I do apologize if I gave you the impression I was trying to coerce you in my arguments or with the questions and thoughts I wrestle with (I do wish I was a better writer and clearer thinker). The topic of common sense burial has challenged me in a number of areas about what I believe and why, and I have appreciated learning from everyone here. I have viewed this thread as being about exploring natural law, customs, different beliefs, scripture, and etc. and as a friendly venue to share opinions, debate things, and etc. I do bring my own convictions, biases, preferences, understanding, and so forth to the discussion, but I thought each of us does that and that it is part of learning in a group like this one? If I missed the boat on this, I am open to correction.

    Like

  237. Did you say “offense against nature”? Not those words. You said that cremation was “offensive”, and that “the light of nature is clear.”

    So: offensive to whom?

    DGH: As for offending God, I’m not sure how to answer this. Do you actually live like this, that everything is either right or wrong, either an offense against God or not?

    I think you’ve lost track of who’s talking about “offense” here. It wasn’t I who said cremation is offensive.

    Like

  238. Lily, thank you. I’m not personally offended at all — I just happen to disagree.

    And I believe that it’s important that we be able to couch our opinions as provisional: “I would not be cremated, because it seems offensive.” That’s much less coercive than “Cremation is offensive; the light of nature is clear” — which really casts judgment on anyone who has cremated a loved one.

    Like

  239. Look, DGH, I don’t want to paint you as a conscience-binding guy if that’s not your intent.

    My point was, If you want the post to mean, “I wouldn’t want to cremate a loved one, because I would feel that it was dishonoring him or her”, then that’s one thing.

    And if you want the post to mean, “The light of nature is clear: cremation is dishonoring to the dead”, then that’s quite another.

    I get the sense that you meant the first, but you couched it as the second. That’s all.

    —

    Just for the fun of it, I asked a theologically reliably friend “What do you think about cremation?” She reacted immediately:

    “Well, I wouldn’t want to be cremated; it seems to prefigure the judgment of hell. But I can’t say that it’s wrong.”

    That kind of response gives others the space to disagree without having to be judged by “the clear light of nature.”

    Like

  240. I would say well done to everybody who posted here. That was a useful discussion and can be applied to other issues that are not clear about how they “bind our conscience.” I am still a bit unclear about the following concepts and how they interrelate with each other:

    1) natural law; 2) general revelation; 3) natural theology; 4) light of nature; 5) natural reason

    Here is how Wikepedia defines each term:

    1) natural law: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning “man-made law”, not “good law”; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.[who?][citation needed]

    Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

    2) general revelation; General revelation is a term used mainly by evangelical scientists and theologians which refers to a universal aspect of God, of God’s knowledge and of spiritual matters, reputedly discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy and reasoning, human conscience or providence or providential history. Evangelical theologians use the term to describe knowledge of God, which they believe, is plainly available to all mankind. These aspects of general revelation are believed to pertain to outward temporal events that are experienced within the world or this physical universe.

    Within this type of revelation, it is believed that God does not use specific words, or specific actions, but more general or encompassing events that occur in creation, conscience, and history.[1] This belief in general revelation claims to have its support from the scriptures of Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-6, and Matthew 5:45. The idea is that general revelation is to show the works and existence of God in indirect ways.

    In the context of General Revelation it is believed that:

    1.Physical Universe – God uses the laws and nature of this physical universe to create or influence events to display God’s existence, power, order, rightness, wisdom, knowledge, greatness, supremacy and goodness.
    2.Human Conscience – God has instilled the innate ability in all persons to discern the differences between right and wrong, to choose and act on these discernments and judgments according to free will and conscience, and to experience guilt when the act or choice is wrong. This aspect of General Revelation implies that God exists, but that depends on the willingness and openness of the person to recognize such an inference.
    3.Providence – refers to things affected by the providence of God. The word providence is to mean, “divine providence; proceeding from divine direction or superintendence; as the providential contrivance of things; as a providential escape from danger.”[2]
    It is believed that General Revelation is insufficient to impart salvation, or any understanding or knowledge of salvation or the specific role of Jesus Christ. General Revelation is understood as to the experience of life by a person, and is solely dependent on the ability of the person(s) to clearly comprehend any part of God’s hand in external events or things.

    3) natural theology: Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary experience. Thus it is distinguished from revealed theology (or revealed religion) which is based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds; and also from transcendental theology, theology from a priori reasoning.

    Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BC) in his (lost) Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum established a distinction of three kinds of theology: civil (political) (theologia civilis), natural (physical) (theologia naturalis) and mythical (theologia mythica). The theologians of civil theology are “the people”, asking how the gods relate to daily life and the state (imperial cult). The theologians of natural theology are the philosophers, asking for the nature of the gods, and the theologians of mythical theology are the poets, crafting mythology. The terminology entered Stoic tradition and is used by Augustine of Hippo.

    Natural theology, thus, is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with describing the nature of the gods, or, in monotheism, arguing for or against attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation. Physico-theology is the term for a theology based on the constitution of the natural world, especially derived from perceived elements of “design”, which gave rise to the argument from design for the existence of God, beginning with the “fifth way” of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274).

    4) light of nature: This website is about the light of nature, an idea stemming from the fact that many ancient cultures thought that there is a certain wisdom (light=consciousness) in nature. But what could this light be, actually? Perhaps it is the idea that we are also a part of nature (atoms, molecules, genes, neural networks), or that we can learn lessons from nature. You might say: “Nature is not wise, that is a projection! We human beings are conscious, we have memory; nature is unconscious, she is just nature, she cannot be wise! On the other hand, people do say: “I have to listen to my heart” or “I answered from my gut” or “Listen to what the trees and stones tell us.” Certainly guts do not talk[1] and trees and stones for that matter neither. Then what are we really talking about?

    Looking closer (which I hope to do in these we pages) I discovered that this light is a symbol for our conscious knowledge or inspiration that comes out of the unconscious, which often appears to come directly from nature. Projected, yes. But still, is there not an intelligence there?

    Being a natural scientist by um, well… my nature I guess, and also by years of study and research (into physics, rocks, mountain building, plate tectonics and non-linear natural processes), I decided to delve a bit deeper into these issues. In doing this, I came across the writings of a wild European character, Theophrastus Paracelsus, who lived in the 16th century. He expressed with eloquence, depth, and fervor (and a bit of craziness) his answers to questions about man’s relationship to himself, nature, and God. Unlike myself, he seemed to have found a way to unify his own divergent voices. Thus I decided to investigate my own fascination and split by trying to understand what Paracelsus meant by “knowledge from God” and “knowledge from nature”. I single out Paracelsus over many other writers, thinkers, and visionaries because he seems to have been aware of the god-like power that technology could wield and yet he expressed a differentiated attitude about the ethical responsibility involved in man’s use of the light of nature. This differentiated attitude is, to my mind, absent in modern science. My particular personal problem is that I have neither a standpoint of my own nor much religious insight. The point of this essay is to help me to develop some kind of standpoint and, hopefully, a ray of light along the dark path to more religious attitude.

    [1] I am not so sure on this; consider the statement: “Gut feelings are not just free-floating emotional states but actual physical sensations that convey meaning to certain areas in the brain.” Louann Brizendine, The Female Brain, Broadway Random House, 2006, p. 120.
    The Light

    5) natural reason: Could not find a good definition when I googled it. Something similiar to natural theology? This term is not easy to define. I think that we mean that we can identify the proximal, e.g. immediate cause, or at least see the contributing factors that went into an event (using natural reason). “Natural” excludes just saying “God did it”. (I stole that one from some guys web site- sounds pretty good to me).

    I am going to copy that and use it when I need to.

    Darryl,

    I was a sporadic watcher of The Wire and never got into long enough to follow the story line that closely. The episodes I did watch were very well done though. I was a regular watcher of Six Feet Under when it was on HBO. I got a kick out of looking for some of our supplies during the prep room scenes. Unfortunately there was more Dodge and Pierce embalming fluid displayed than ours. There were a lot of lowering device scenes in the show though. But our lowering device gets lots of scene time in many TV shows and movies. I’m shamelessly promoting again.

    You said: ” I am particularly concerned about matters of conscience practically and doctrinally. Conscience seems awfully close to the doctrine of justification.”

    That seems to have been an ultimate concern of the Apostle Paul as revealed to us in the book of Acts and which the following scriptures versus make clear:

    1) Acts 23:1- “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience, up to this day.” 2) Acts 24:16- “So I always take pains to have a clear conscience towards both God and man.”; 3) 2Tim. 1:3- “I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience.” These verses tell me that living with a clear conscience before God and man is of extreme importance but how do I do this? When I do not “take pains to have a clear conscience before God and man,” I get drawn off course in my spiritual life. Reformation spirituality is quite helpful in maintaining my conscience in a healthy and biblical state of freedom- free from all condemnation and guilt.

    Sorry about the length of this post- hope it is helpful to someone

    Like

  241. from Jonathan Rainbow, deceased in 2010, PHD in church history, taught at Southern Baptist Seminary, in his book From Earth To Glory: “I am often asked about cremation. The Bible says nothing directly to the topic of cremation, but it does give us a doctrinal scaffolding on which to build a biblical view.

    If the body is really the person, and if the body of a believer belongs to Jesus Christ, and if the body has a future in resurrection, then it seems that the intentional destruction of the body through cremation is morally wrong. Intention is the key concept. My body could be burned to ashes, or blown apart in war, and God would still raise it from the dead. Even if I am buried in civilized fashion, my body will eventually return to dust, and God will still raise it from the dead. So the issue is not whether God can raise a cremated body from the dead. He can. The issue is my own intention, and the fact that by choosing cremation I am making a statement about my own body. To the Christian who says, “I want to be cremated,” I pose the question, “Why?”

    Because it’s not as expensive? If this is the real problem, then I say, let the church help with the burial costs.

    Because burial takes up too much space? I think this is silly. There is plenty of room for people to be buried.

    I fear the choice of cremation is often a theological statement about the body, which means: this is not really “me” anymore, I’m in heaven with Jesus, my body doesn’t matter anymore so just get rid of it. In other words, I fear that in cremation we have creeping platonism. And it is a historical fact that the pagan Greeks and Romans who did not believe in the resurrection of the body, cremated their dead, and that one of the ways that the early Christians proclaimed their gospel faith was by burying their dead and treating the dead bodies of the saints as something precious. The disposition of a Christian’s dead body is not a theologically neutral thing.”

    Like

  242. Well, it’s clear that I’m standing alone on this side. 🙂

    Notwithstanding Dr. Rainbow’s reputation, I think he does make an error here. And that error is in trying to divine the motives of the one desiring cremation. Yes, the two motives he ascribes are silly. But those don’t exhaust the possible motives.

    And fearing “creeping platonism” can be matched with this (equally fallacious) argument: An inordinate regard for dead bodies can be viewed as a form of “creeping Roman Catholicism”, in which the dead body itself is thought to have some mystical connection to the person. The result is the practice of keeping body parts of saints as relics. When Dr. Rainbow talks about the early church treating “the dead bodies of saints as something precious”, that’s really what was going on there.

    The bottom line is that one can, conceivably, have a principled Biblical reason to be cremated: to express the fact that my first body’s destiny is to become dust.

    It’s not the best reason in the world, and I have no plans myself to be cremated. But it is defensible, and I think it’s within the realm of Christian liberty.

    Like

  243. Jeff, and that’s it? You simply want room to disagree, or not to have your decision viewed negatively? Why can’t something be unsuitable if not offensive to God?

    I don’t really understand your ethic, Jeff. First the Bible speaks to everything (yes with qualifications). Then motivation can be evaluated and is important for knowing whether a person has acted correctly or not. Then you want the light of nature to reveal what is offensive to God.

    And now when it comes to cremation you want room for a variety of ideas. Plus you seem unwilling to push further in your biblical motivational grid to see if cremation is good or bad.

    Something is amiss here.

    Like

  245. Jeff,

    I haven’t read every post here, so pardon if this is a repeat. But I think every 2ker would agree with you that burial of whatever kind is within the realm of Christian liberty in the sense that you would be neither disciplined for your choice of arrangements for relatives nor subjected to sermons on the matter. It’s one of the major differences from the worldviewers struggling to define the church’s borders by educational preferences.

    That doesn’t mean that burial and education are unimportant or that all are equally compatible with Christianity, so the discussion is still worth having, but it’s not a matter of apostasy unless a suggestion necessitates sin, like a funeral orgy. I don’t understand why a class of important-but-oft-uncertain matters so rankles non-2kers … endemic biblicism is the easy (cheap?) conclusion … and I also don’t see how they’re inconsistent with having firm opinions about them, since they seem to be the stuff of most of life. DVD’s “Bioethics and the Christian Life” is a great example of this reasoning, obviously from a 2k perspective; I’d also add CS Lewis’s “Abolition of Man” and a multitude of Catholic essays.

    I agree with your argument from science as far as that goes, although the idea of calling atoms “mine” vs. someone else’s was a little strange … at that level, we’re mostly open space, and if electrons count, then static electricity is an identity crisis. That aside, I’m a little confused why that view wasn’t given more weight. If the discovery of ANE parallels can inform our OT interpretations, then surely the evolution of science can inform our interpretation of natural law.

    I’d agree with your position wrt liberty in burial simply because a cremation costing $2,000 and a burial costing $18,000 can settle the matter necessarily for many Christians, unless the church wishes to pay the difference. And wrt organ donation, the thought of a child dying because their mother was morally bound to keep both of her kidneys is much more confusing to me than triperspectivalism. Whatever natural law theorists posit about organ donation ethics, I think the light of nature declares plainly that it will continue, at least in certain circumstances, regardless.

    However much that puts me outside of the 2k majority here, at least a disagreement over significant areas of life can take place among 2kers without either side looking to declare their opinion that of Christ, and fence the church … let alone the state … accordingly. If that difference were the only one it offered, the 2k label would still be worthwhile.

    Like

  246. John, remember when Nate with his own two hands buried Lisa who insisted on simply being put in a hole? That was just good drama. Sometimes I wanted to bury Brenda with my own two hands, but kill her mother the same way.

    Like

  248. DGH: Jeff, and that’s it? You simply want room to disagree, or not to have your decision viewed negatively?

    Viewed negatively is fine. Coercive language not so much.

    And I’m used to being viewed negatively-ish here, so that doesn’t bother me, either. But I sure wouldn’t want readers of this blog to walk away with the conclusion that organ donation is incompatible with Christianity.

    I’m just saying, regulate your verbal strength. Your voice is more powerful than you give credit for.

    And I notice that you still haven’t answered the question, “offensive to whom?”, which gets at the heart of the coercive language. For we have a moral obligation not to offend, right?

    Like

  249. DGH: I don’t really understand your ethic, Jeff. First the Bible speaks to everything (yes with qualifications). Then motivation can be evaluated and is important for knowing whether a person has acted correctly or not. Then you want the light of nature to reveal what is offensive to God.

    I think you’ve significantly misunderstood two things.

    First, again, it wasn’t *my* idea to call cremation “offensive.” I simply explored that language by asking “offensive to whom?” Your phrase “the light of nature makes clear…” led me to believe that the offense you had in mind is not to people, but to God Himself.

    I was just putting the implications of your language front-and-center.

    Second, I think you misunderstand greatly what I mean when I say that “the Bible speaks to everything.” There is a difference in language, the difference between specific action points and strategic goals.

    When you speak of “speaking to something”, you seem have in mind a specific action point: The Bible tells us to preach the Word, for example.

    But I don’t think in those terms. I think rather in terms of strategic goals: The Bible tells us to glorify God in all that we do. That’s a strategic goal, but not a specific action point. The *how* of glorifying God is left unspecified.

    Two things immediately become clear.

    First, why is motive important? Because motive is tied to the goal. Am I earning money so as to glorify God with that money? Or to please myself? What is my goal?

    Second, our differences of opinion are clarified.

    You hear me say “the Bible speaks to everything” and imagine that I have specific action points in mind, that I want to bind peoples’ consciences on all manner of things and use the Bible to tell them to wear red socks instead of blue.

    But no, I actually give them quite a bit of liberty on the actions. The actions can be quite diverse. What is not at liberty is the goal (to glorify God), and of course actions incompatible with the goal (violations of Scripture).

    Meanwhile, I hear you say “the Bible is silent on much of the common realm”, and my first reaction is that you are saying that we don’t have to worry about glorifying God in the common realm. But no, you are saying that the Bible doesn’t give specific action points for most of our common lives — which is true, BTW.

    DGH: And now when it comes to cremation you want room for a variety of ideas. Plus you seem unwilling to push further in your biblical motivational grid to see if cremation is good or bad.

    It’s not that I’m unwilling, entirely, but that I am not so far persuaded, AND that I don’t think the arguments presented are sufficiently strong that y’all ought to be throwing terms like “Gnostic” and “unreliable” around. The “unreliable” especially stung, since it seemed to be prejudicial going forward. And thus it was coercive language: Agree with me, or your judgment will be suspect henceforth.

    If we’re just talking about ideas, then let’s keep it light.

    Like

  250. Jeff,

    You wrote: “And I believe that it’s important that we be able to couch our opinions as provisional: “I would not be cremated, because it seems offensive.” That’s much less coercive than “Cremation is offensive; the light of nature is clear” — which really casts judgment on anyone who has cremated a loved one.”

    You say that our convictions/arguments should be couched as opinions that are provisional so we are not casting judgment on anyone? I think you are confused. To judge a practice is not the same as judging a person. If this was the case, then abortion and homosexuality would be taboo subjects that cannot be discussed either. Nonsense.

    You have made accusations of “binding consciences” and “coercion” against arguments for burial. Could not the same be said about your arguments? I think you are blind to the double standards that you want to play by. In all my years, I have yet to see a “binding consciences” or “causing offense” accusation that wasn’t a tactic to shut others up so the person using the tactic could control the situation to favor them.

    If you are trying to make the case of Christian liberty where the Bible is silent, that is not in question. The question is what is best? The Bible is silent about rock bands playing “Jesus in my Boyfriend” type songs in the Divine service, people dressed up as clowns serving the Lord’s Supper, and so forth. Yes, we have Christian liberty to do these things, but are they better or even equal to the church’s traditions? Are these new practices best? Do they bear witness to the church’s message of the gospel and do they teach/build-up faith like reverent music, liturgy, psalms, and the solemn serving of the Lord’s Supper does?

    The same can be said of Christian liberty in cremation. The Bible and the first 1700 years of the church history show burial as the norm. A traditional Christian funeral proclaims Christ and his gospel and then buries the saint. It bears witness to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. I think the burden is upon you to show how cremation is better than or equal to the church’s tradition of burying her dead. Cremation tends to bear witness the traditional gnostic view that the body is merely a vessel and of no importance. Burial bears witness to Christ’s death both in form and symbol.

    One of the problems I see in many arguments for Christian liberty is that it looks like an argument for American individuality and really doesn’t have what is best for the Christian community at the heart of it’s argument. You do have the liberty to cremate yourself and your family, if you so wish. No one is arguing that. The argument is – what is best?

    Like

  251. Lily:

    If this was the case, then abortion and homosexuality would be taboo subjects that cannot be discussed either. Nonsense.

    No, there’s a significant difference. Both abortion and homosexuality are actually contrary to Scripture; cremation is not.

    You have made accusations of “binding consciences” and “coercion” against arguments for burial. Could not the same be said about your arguments? I think you are blind to the double standards that you want to play by. In all my years, I have yet to see a “binding consciences” or “causing offense” accusation that wasn’t a tactic to shut others up so the person using the tactic could control the situation to favor them.

    No, and I’m sorry if you’ve felt shut down. As I’ve said before, I have no intention of being cremated myself. And I have no objection to you believing that there is a connection between body and soul after death; nor to you expressing that opinion; nor to your pointing out the church’s baseline practices in the past. All of that is legit discussion material.

    So I don’t want you or anyone else to “shut up” about this. I do want for those who disagree with you — on a matter not spelled out in Scripture — to feel the freedom to do so without being judged as acting in a manner contrary to Christianity.

    It’s all about the level of coercion in our language.

    And, I do feel a freedom to dig in and express this strongly, because it’s in our Confession.

    Here I think we have a Reformed/Lutheran division, for you say,

    The Bible is silent about rock bands playing “Jesus in my Boyfriend” type songs in the Divine service, people dressed up as clowns serving the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.

    But in the Reformed tradition, the silence of Scripture on matters of faith and worship is equal to prohibition; while silence on other matters is equal to permission. I believe Lutherans see that differently, yes?

    But again: please feel free to continue to make the case. Just please also keep in mind the power of pejorative language to coerce others into keeping their heads down and suborning their consciences.

    Like

  252. Jeff,

    Your arguments for the weaker brother (coercion) are a diversionary tactic. Are not all views represented here? Is this not an argument over what is best? Is this so-called weaker brother unable to read, think, research, pray, and talk with his pastor? Do not debates help us learn to think critically and evaluate subjects? Is not learning to be responsible for your own conscience is part of discipleship? There is nothing wrong with being challenged to learn what you believe and why you believe it. You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the readers following this blog and need to stop the weaker brother nonsense about binding consciences and coercion. As I said before, you seem to want to play by double standards.

    The burden is upon you to show why cremation is better than or equal to the church’s tradition of burial. It’s easy to show why Christian tradition sees burial as best.

    Like

  253. Zrim,

    I know what you mean about Brenda and her mother. I think it would be safe to come to the conclusion that neither “took pains” to live with a clear conscience before both God and man. Brenda’s brother seemed to be a pawn in the Mensa type control tactics of Brenda and her Mom. They really screwed him up. Billy would have been better off if he just cut ties with both of them. I think he ended up kind of doing that but could never forge or find his own identity. I can’t remember if he committed suicide or not. If I remember right he tried a couple times.

    What I never understood was Nate’s attraction to either Brenda or Lilly. He did not get much of a role model to follow in either his Dad or Mom. Nate was a likable character who always seemed on the edge of reaching sanity but was never able to shake his attraction to females who left him high and dry. Nate’s cancer may have been symbolic that death can be an act of God’s mercy in order to deliver us from the madness we have to deal with from day to day. Thank God for Sunday’s!!!

    The show ended without coming to any kind of solution or resolution about anything. Death was always in the backround and lurking in the shadows. It was an eary show which tried to deal with death head on but never came to any kind of good answer for it. All the characters were left lingering too. I was always kind of fascinated with Nate’s red headed sister. I was disappointed that they did not develop her character more. The show ended too abruptly.

    Like

  254. John, Billy tried but never did off himself. He found some sanity, much like his sister. If anybody had insane parental role models it was Brenda and Billy (and ironic, being psychoanalyists), not Nate, David and Claire whose folks were fairly typical. That Brenda and Billy found sanity was the story. I found Nate to be the most sympathetic character.

    If anything should be cremated it was the final episode with all that projecting into the future jazz, and poorly done to boot.

    Like

  255. Zrim,

    I would disagree about Nate and David”s parents-Claire and her womanizing and prone to party too much husband (I forget his name; he would pop up in Nate’s imagination from time to time). They might have been typical of the post-WWII baby boomer parents. Kind of like the ones I was brought up with. I do have a tendency to blame too much on my parents for my ills in life though. Not a good thing. Perhaps I was projecting.

    You must have missed a few episodes. There were occasions in which Claire and her husband were shown in not to positive a light. I did not get the idea that they were “fairly typical.” Maybe fairly typical of how baby boomers were raised. However, I would agree that Brenda and Billy’s parents were much more destructive to their kids. Or, to use modern or postmodern psycho speak- “dysfunctional.” They should have known better.

    I vaguely remember the last episode but do remember being very disappointed about it too. They probably ran into contract problems and problems with the actors and actresses and had to end it too quickly.

    Like

  257. John, who missed some episodes? Nate’s first wife (the one he buried) was Lisa, not Lily (there was no Lily). Claire was the sister, and she never married, so I don’t know what you mean when you refer to her husband. Maybe you’re talking about Ruth, the matriarch? The deceased-apparition patriarch was Nathaniel Sr. I do agree that he and Ruth reflect typical post-WWII baby boomer parents. They had their troubles and flaws, but that’s different from the insanities of Brenda and Billy’s folks.

    Like

  258. I guess you could say that Brenda and Billy finding sanity was the story but I think there was much more to it than that. They did come to a certain peace and acceptance about their upbringing. There was always the undercurrents of death and how the characters dealt with it or refused to deal with it. Perhaps the writers of the show were saying that psycho-babble did not really give answers to the problems posed by death. In fact, it had a tendency to screw people up who looked in that direction for answers.

    Like

  259. Yes, I did get the names messed up. I also cannot remember why Nate and Brenda broke up and the Lisa (not Lilly- I think Lisa’s real name is Lilly something) distraction never made much sense to me.

    Ruth was always getting involved with these strange men after her husbands death. I think she went through about 4 or 5 of them. The one who worked in the funeral home was the most comical. He is the guy who is on the TV show the Office now.

    Like

  260. Brenda was too insane for Nate. Lisa was an old flame of his. He caught up with her when he and Claire drove up to the PNW on business. She became an easy way to disentangle himself from Brenda. Plus he got her pregnant, so. They were headed for a divorce right before Lisa died anyway. Nate was destined for Brenda. Dead Lisa joins Nate’s dead dad in haunting Nate in life.

    Lisa was played by Lili Taylor. She was also in “Mystic Pizza” with Julia Roberts, who I’m sure was in something close to Kevin Bacon, whose last name has something to do with creamation, just to keep this close to on-topic. Speaking of which, recall that Nate fooled Lisa’s parents by giving them the cremated remains of a young John Doe he had met who died of cancer. Lisa wanted wanted to be buried in the wilderness with no chemicals or preservatives, while her family, sort of observant Jews, wanted her cremated and buried in their family mausoleum. Burial or cremation, I think the light of nature teaches that it’s always wrong to fake people out like that.

    Like

  261. The whole series, Six Feet Under, could be used to put flesh on the arguments we have been considering here. Since none of the families involved in the show could be considered biblically literate or functioning under a covenant with God mentality you would have to analyze the show from the perspective of general revelation, the light of nature or natural reason. OK, I won’t go there. Kind of just kidding.

    Like

  262. Zrim you posted before I got to finish and I did not read your post. But we were headed in the same direction.

    You either have a good memory Zrim or you read the Cliff notes (or maybe you have been watching On Demand- I’ve noticed they have been rerunning the program) That is vaguely coming back to me. Good analysis though- that does seem to makes sense (about Nate, Brenda and Lisa) but like I said the story was always left hanging and no good solutions or resolutions seem to have been reached. Nate never did come to any peace or acceptance about his conflicts with his father or his female relationships. And he was the one going back and forth with the remission of his brain tumor.

    Like

  263. Lily,

    I seem to have been confusing, for not only you but also DGH (Feb 1@2:31) thought that I was arguing for the superiority of cremation over burial. I apologize for giving that impression, but that’s not my belief.

    Rather, from Jan 26 on, I’ve been arguing that burial and cremation are both acceptable options.

    So my burden of proof is rather lower; I simply have to demonstrate that cremation is not unacceptable (since we already agree that burial is quite acceptable!).

    The core plank of my proof is liberty: That God alone is the Lord of the conscience, and the rest of WCoF ch. 20. In my view, the rest follows.

    So it’s not intended as a diversionary tactic, but a focusing tactic. In effect, I’m saying,

    “Here’s the real issue, folks: is God alone the Lord of our consciences in this matter, OR can we sneak a little bit of human lordship in by making cremation a ‘gnostic’ statement without Biblical warrant?”

    And you say that you don’t want to lord it over others, and I believe you. So in light of that, let me ask: Is it *really* the case that burial is the only Christian option?

    I hope this satisfies your concern also about double standards.

    —

    Also, as a side question: If cremation is a Gnostic statement, did Gnostics cremate their dead?

    Like

  264. Nate didn’t have a tumor, he had a complicated brain condition called AVM. Probably because he didn’t pray hard enough. Kidding.

    Like

  265. See Zrim, your memory is better than mine. But I am 53 years old and have killed some memory bank nueron brain cells in my time I think. I am starting to have senior moments like Lily.

    Like

  266. Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.

    Perhaps because of the differences between the Lutheran and the Reformed in some areas of Christian liberty, Lutherans make more analyses on what are best practices when it comes to liberty. So, in the interest of trying to understand best practices in Christian liberty let me address this statement:

    Jeff wrote: “The core plank of my proof is liberty: That God alone is the Lord of the conscience, and the rest of WCoF ch. 20. In my view, the rest follows.”

    Let me begin by repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier comment: “One of the problems I see in many arguments for Christian liberty is that it looks like an argument for American individuality and really doesn’t have what is best for the Christian community at the heart of it’s argument.”

    This is one of the dangers I think any of us can easily fall into simply because we are Americans. Our culture would like to make everything merely a private and individual matter, and Christians absorb much of that kind of wrong-headed thinking. Is the church to mirror the culture and join the culture in it’s increasing movement towards cremation? It deserves careful examination. Christian freedom is shaky ground to base our practices on. Shouldn’t our practices be consistent with what we are taught about Christ and his gospel?

    Should Christian freedom be allowed to inform church practices? The issue of cremation/burial is not merely a personal issue. Isn’t almost everything in Christian life something that affects the church? Saint Paul forcefully taught about Christian liberty in the context of the congregation and the wider church body in which our personal lives are lived out. We are members of Christ’s body and as such we care about the other members and how our behavior/choices affect them.

    Cremation is within Christian liberty and sometimes cremation is even demanded (eg: a plague). But historical church tradition has always been in favor of burial. Departures from a norm are certainly allowable, but that does not make cremation a desirable norm for Christian funerals, and we should not be laissez-faire about drifting away from historical church norms.

    It’s worth pondering scripture on the burial and non-cremation of Jesus Christ. What is revealed in scripture should guide our liberty in funeral practices. It’s not helpful to think that the soul is the core and the body is peripheral. Both should be affirmed: we are ensouled bodies, we are embodied souls. It was God’s will to create us this way. The reverence the Jews had for the body of the faithful dead should inform us in our own thinking. Bodies are to be cared for, whether living or dead, I see no Christian freedom to do otherwise. The body is a person not an it.

    We are tempted to bypass burial in favor of cremation simply because of cost and rationalize that liberty allows us to do this uncritically. If economics or liberty allows us to forgo Christian traditions, then I see no reason we couldn’t rationalize using kool-aid in the Lord’s Supper. Scripture is clear on the care and expense lavished on the dead bodies of the faithful: Abraham with his wife Sarah, the children of Israel with Jacob and then Joseph, the disciples of John the Baptist with the decapitated body of John, and of course the extremely expensive ointments put on Jesus’ Body before His burial and those intended to be put on Him on Easter morning by the women. In Scripture God both buries Moses and is buried (Jesus).

    Jeff, you also wrote: “So my burden of proof is rather lower; I simply have to demonstrate that cremation is not unacceptable.”

    As you can see, I’m not going to let you get away with that statement. I am calling you to a higher standard in your liberty. You still need to show why cremation should be allowed to uncritically start replacing the wisdom of church tradition and why the church should reflect the culture’s embrace of cremation.

    Like

  267. John wrote: “I am starting to have senior moments like Lily.”

    Ah… I’ve heard that senior moments are a piece of cake once you get to the point where you don’t realize you’re having them. 🙂

    Like

  268. Jeff,

    I’m sorry I did not make this clear: I do understand that you would not personally choose cremation. The problem as I see it is that you seem to be treating the choice between burial and cremation as a thing indifferent. Choosing between chocolate and vanilla cake is a thing indifferent. Choosing between cremation and burial is not a thing indifferent (eg: they are not equal or merely a matter of taste).

    I also forgot to answer your question about gnostic. Perhaps it would help to explain my understanding of a gnostic view of the body? The body is seen as a mere vessel, a thing of no importance, and we can treat it or dispose of it as we please. Whether I treat my own body this way or someone else’s body this way, it reflects a gnostic view of the body. For example, the way the hook-up culture treats their bodies is gnostic in my way of understanding.

    Lastly, regarding double standards. I was trying to point out that someone could lay the same kinds of charges of binding consciences, coercion, or causing offensive at your doorstep. It all depends upon the reader. Pax.

    Like

  269. Lily,

    Thanks for your thoughts. While trudging back and forth *twice* between home and the nearest big city, I was thinking about how I would respond as an elder to someone who wanted to bury his father; then to someone who wanted to cremate his father.

    And it did strike me that I would accept “burial” without question; whereas I would probably ask the one desiring cremation to consider what the cremation might say.

    I *do* think that burial is a better option in the majority of cases; with cremation as a better option in a minority of cases (I’m glad you mentioned “plague”, since that was one of the cases on my mind).

    So perhaps we can leave that issue there.

    I will say that if you hang around here a bit, you may see a fairly strong distinction made (by many folk) between liberty in matters of faith and worship; and liberty in other matters.

    Here’s how we look at it:

    God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience… — WCoF 20.2.

    So since the church tradition here, if viewed as a command or doctrine, is a matter of faith (“burial is a Christian practice; cremation is a gnostic practice”), that tradition has to justify itself from good and necessary inference from Scripture.

    And again:

    It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

    All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. — WCoF 31.2,3.

    You can see that we give church tradition authority, but always subject to the Scripture and never to be made an absolute rule of faith.

    Anyways, if you have any final thoughts, I’m all eyes.

    Like

  270. BTW, I agree with your basic understanding that we are body and soul together. I just believe that it does not extend past death.

    It seems to me that this is not a gnostic, but particularly Christian view; whereas viewing the body as somehow connected to the soul *after* death is not a particularly Christian view (though common in various pagan religions … not saying you’re a proto-pagan of course).

    Like

  271. Jeff,

    All eyes? You are too funny and you shouldn’t encourage me. I’ve been writing way too much and much too long of comments to suit my taste, but it seems to be one of the hazards of not being a good writer or clear thinker, and passionate about this subject.

    I think we are both saying the same things. I hope that you do not still question if I am trying to make a law where there is none. I am in full agreement that church traditions and practices should be judged by scripture, and that they are not an absolute rule of faith. [But, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to banish the “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs, the clowns, and the grape juice to Mars? Sigh… dreams are free!]

    I think you found the key to understanding where cremation’s place is in Christian funerals during your trudges. It’s not a matter of cremation not being a liberty, but understanding why it is being chosen. At least it’s key in my thinking. But maybe that’s because a standard Lutheran response to almost anything is… why? What does this mean?

    I think we are on the same page where consciences are concerned. I do not want to violate anyone’s conscience and would like to see consciences informed by solid teaching. And, obviously, I’m not above trying to persuade you (doggedly) on this subject. 🙂

    Like

  272. Jeff, regarding BTW:

    I am lousy at trying to explain things that without sounding like or actually wandering into heretical detours. My main point was trying to get you to look at the importance of the body whether alive or dead. Please continue to think about the subject of death and Christian funerals. It’s a rich mine.

    Like

  273. Jeff,

    I think this article posted on Modern Reformation might help you make sense of where I’m coming from in some of my thoughts.

    Here are a couple of snips:

    We’re not as good at seeing ways in which our culture might be dehumanizing because we’re generally not very good at rejoicing in our mere humanity…

    Recently, I’ve been more interested in what we might call the way culture denies reality, and the ways in which the church is tempted, because of its placement in our culture, to deny reality. I’m interested in cultural patterns that deny the structures of reality that God has created, because culture isn’t just about ideas-it’s about ways of being and doing within God’s creation…

    Full article here:
    http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1071&var3=main

    Like

  274. Of all pc-2k-ers, Ken Myers makes the most sense to me. Though I do think they all have Wendell Berry very much on the brain. What’s next, a tattoo of St. Athanasius? 🙂

    Like

  275. Jeff, once more: tatoos are for neo-calvinists, not paleo.

    But, Lily, you said, “The problem as I see it is that you [Jeff] seem to be treating the choice between burial and cremation as a thing indifferent. Choosing between chocolate and vanilla cake is a thing indifferent. Choosing between cremation and burial is not a thing indifferent (eg: they are not equal or merely a matter of taste).” I’m not sure if this was cleared up in the subsequent discussion between you and Jeff. But it was Jeff’s point to dgh that his strong persuasion against cremation seemed like a form of binding. You seemed agreed with me that it wasn’t, which seemed to presume this is a matter indifferent. But then you dinged Jeff with this. So, are you still of the persuasion that this isn’t a thing indifferent the way choosing cake is?

    Like

  276. Jeff – I’m glad you appreciate Ken Myers. I really enjoy his work. I’m only semi-familiar with a smattering of Wendell Berry’s work, but I can understand the draw. I love the way he talks sooo slow and isn’t in a hurry. He pulls me back to dimmed memories of when life was slower, more humane, and wholistic. Things are too fast, specialized, and compartmentalized, and the fruit seems to be dehumanization in both thought and deed.

    Both Myers and Berry help me realize how subtly and not so subtly the world is pressing me into it’s mold just by living in our culture. It’s too easy for me to say ” whatever” and not try to push back. Our culture has become so dominated by an invisible fast-paced, mechanistic, utilitarian, and pragmatic task-master that it’s hard for people to slow their lives down, enjoy family/friends, and just be human. People are so harried.

    I miss the Sunday blue laws that helped slow the world down and gave a kind of rhythm and order to things. Saturday was a busy shopping day for everyone because on Sunday almost everything was closed (except vital services). Sunday was quiet and mellow; a day for church, family, and friends. Now there is nothing to make the world stop and slow down.

    I can understand why people want to merge the two kingdoms and bring back a culture dominated by Christian influences. Hey! I’d vote for Sunday blue laws to come back! The people most hurt by the lack of the blue laws are on the lower end of the income scale and it makes it hard for many of them to attend church. For that reason, I can’t criticize the churches who have services on days besides Sunday. I also find appreciation for the Roman Catholic practice of daily mass. It would be nice to be able to go to church for a daily fix!

    In the midst of this craziness, I think 2k is more important than it has ever been. I’m not sure how the church can survive the way the world is heading without 2k. In some Reformed circles, it looks like don’t want to accept it’s wisdom so they shoot the messengers. 2k is a humble, earthy approach to the world we live in, and seems too un-American with the ways it will not support utopian dreams, quick-fixes, flashy celebrity, combativeness, and so forth. It can protect us from being hijacked by the schemes of both the Christian left and the Christian right political agendas. It gives guidance on how live quiet lives faithfully serving our neighbors and worshiping God. It can equips us to live out our faith in any culture and help firmly root us in a humble, beaten, bloody Savior hung on the cross for us.

    The thing that confuses me about Reformed 2k is that it doesn’t seem to be taught in tandem with the theology of the cross and the doctrine of vocation. As far as I can tell, the three doctrines work in unity in Lutheranism. Reformed 2k seems to be bony instead of fleshed out without them. But that may be because I haven’t read enough yet. 🙂

    Like

  277. Lily, you may already be familiar with it, but speaking of specialization and compartmentalization and expertation (do certified experts in philosophy really love wisdom?), I like Meyers on being a well-informed generalist:

    http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/on-being-a-well-informed-generalist/

    And kudos on what 2k is really trying to say (leave it to a Lutheran). But in my Reformed sensibilities, I’d be as careful about suggesting formal worship on days other than the one God has prescibed as I am about working on the day he has prohibited. I hear some Reformed make the case for two services in a similar way: the question isn’t why two but why not three or more. That sounds a lot like the American who thinks if the doc prescribes one pill then two or three are better. Rhythm is about a uniform alteration.

    Like

  278. Zrim, you would call me on the carpet for being as clear as mud – I’m glad you didn’t tar and feather me! I only hope that I don’t continue to be muddy in my reply.

    I didn’t mean to ding Jeff and be inconsistent. [Do you need body work, Jeff? I think my auto insurance covers dings? 🙂 ]

    I have the same dilemma with this subject as I have with the worship wars. How on earth do you give a traditional perspective and why you think it is a better way without sounding like you are laying down laws in these situations or without sounding like you are telling others what to do? As far as I can tell, there is a time to be silent and a time to speak about things regarding our liberties. I can do my neighbor a disservice if I am silent when I should speak or vice versa. The whole thing is a sticky wicket, in my opinion.

    I don’t speak theologian-ese, or philosophy-ese, but I do know some of the terms, so this probably adds to the problem. When I think of things indifferent, I think of things that do not matter. Whether chocolate or vanilla cake – it doesn’t matter, unless one is allergic to chocolate. When it comes to church norms, it is not an indifferent matter. We need wisdom in our liberty and traditions offer the wisdom of the historic church. We are free to have celebration of life shindigs instead of Christian funerals, but should we? Funerals are on not on the same par with choosing a cake flavor.

    Christian funerals, and marriages (to really muddy the water) are two personal but not private areas of liberty where Christ should be at the center. We are not just individuals, but also part of a church, our choices will affect others. Our different church traditions offer ways to handle both of these events and how to live out and end our lives in community. Do church traditions limit our liberty or guide us through two of the most important events in our lives? Are consciences bound or informed when taught these traditions? Is it wrong to be reminded that we have responsibilities in our liberties whether we choose the guidance of church norms or not? We are free to follow culture’s norms (including cremation), but it does not absolve us of any need to be responsible in our choices.

    I can’t help thinking that a large part of the problems in our culture and churches today is because the Boomer generation rejected the traditions being handed down and wanted to make up their own. I don’t think liberty gives us the right to be foolish or thoughtless of others or tradition. The Bible teaches us to be prudent and judicious in our choices. It’s easy for me to point to our church traditions for guidance, it’s harder for me to be comfortable with departures anymore. Too many traditions are being unthinkingly put aside or not even known in so many laypeople’s lives.

    Christian liberty reminds me of a child’s coloring book – we can color the page as we please, but if we stray from the lines, it can become a muddled mess. As I see it, part of discipleship is learning how to manage our liberty wisely and color within the lines. Our liberty is not always free-style with no regard for others or where we don’t have to count the cost. We are free to choose, but rarely are our choices of equal value or importance. I wish there were more cake flavor choices.

    Sigh… I hope this doesn’t mean I have a Pharisee hiding inside me. Durn, it’s too bad ya’ll aren’t Pentecostal so you offer to cast it out of me. 😛

    Like

  279. Zrim:

    Re: Liberty in my last comment

    I’m either having trouble communicating this concept because of Lutheranism or because I’m female and it’s like herding cats?

    Anywho, what I think I’m trying to say is that all liberty has responsibilities and I’m speaking in terms of vocation too. An example of a Lutheran understanding of vocations is the one person simultaneously have many vocations: child, spouse, parent, church member, electrician, coach, and all of these people are also our neighbors (Have you ever thought of your wife as your closest neighbor? That’s Lutheran). Our vocations are where we are called to serve and we seek to serve our neighbors faithfully. Whether we use church tradition or not, we need wisdom in all we do in the exercise of our liberty. [Marriage and funerals involve our neighbors in the church and are Christian rites] I hope this makes sense.

    And… I’m becoming curmudgeonly about tradition. And that’s the truth. Phhhhhlt! (think Lily Tomlin).

    Re: Sabbath

    Seriously, I hear you about the need to keep the Sabbath the Sabbath. Keep after me on my inconsistencies!

    Re: “And kudos on what 2k is really trying to say (leave it to a Lutheran).”

    Don’t make me blush! It would have been a piece of cake for ya’ll if you ate some of our quail and turtle soup (eg: the trilogy of 2k, theology of the cross, and vocation, plus observance of Advent and Lent)!

    Re: Ken Myers.

    Thanks, Zrim. There are so many good thoughts there, it’s hard to comment. May you and your family be extra blessed with wisdom and grace.

    Like

  280. Thanks, Lily. I agree that it would be nice for liberty and common sense are two great tastes that go great together, but I can live with those two not always coming together. We Reformed talk about not using liberty as a cover for sin, so liberty and sin are really the problem moreso than liberty and bad sense.

    In fact, some Reformed certified expertologists in philosophy will ding someone for being politically inconsistent with morality, to the point of suggesting that bad logic is just as much a cause for church discipline as bad living. And my guess is that this is a function of making more out of bad sense than our tradition actually does. It’s also a function of moralizing politics and politicizing faith.

    Like

  281. Zrim, I appreciate your thoughts.

    These certified expertologists must be breathing a special brand of rarified air in their ivory towers. Their conclusion is comical. Discipline for bad logic? They don’t seem to understand that they have put themselves first in line for discipline! Their conclusion supports Luther’s view that reason is a whore.

    I appreciate your help with the Reformed view of liberty and sin. Our traditions appear to differ here. We are more concerned with unrepentant sin. Sin, poor judgment, and other such ilk will happen as long as we are poor miserable sinners in mortal bodies. That’s why we have confession and absolution, and our focus is upon daily repentance and faith in Christ. We even repent of our good deeds for they are but filthy rags. Truly, we are beggars all – no matter how rarified the air.

    Like

  282. Lily, for better or worse, here’s how I view adiaphora.

    There are certain actions that God prescribes or proscribes. We can safely call these “good” and “bad” respectively.

    For everything else, there’s context. Actions neither prescribed nor proscribed are neutral of themselves, but can be good or bad, wise or unwise, depending upon context.

    So the choice of “vanilla or chocolate” happens to not be neutral in my family. If I were to get my wife chocolate ice-cream, it would be an offense against charity because she loves chocolate BUT cannot have it (medically speaking).

    I would put the burial and cremation question in that category. The actions themselves are neither proscribed nor prescribed, but in a certain cultural context, cremation might be “saying something” that we wouldn’t want to say.

    Zrim draws a distinction here between wise and unwise on the one hand, and morally good and bad on the other, and I appreciate that distinction, but I worry sometimes that “unwise” is used to cover a multitude of sins.

    For example, he says that a man might spend time with another woman, not crossing the line into sexual behavior, and that time spent is “unwise” rather than “wrong.”

    I wonder whether his wife would agree. It seems to me that much of our foolishness *harms* others and therefore offends against charity.

    Like

  283. Jeff,

    In an earlier comment, I did add the qualifier that the chocolate/vanilla cake decision didn’t matter unless one was allergic to chocolate. As far as I can tell, we are both in agreement that when we make decisions, we see a need to distinguish between what is necessary and what is optional. We seek to choose what is of benefit and helpful (good and wise), but these things are not necessarily considered obligatory – as in the case of a spouse, we will seek to please their taste buds in the selection of a cake rather than our own. So many things come into consideration when making decisions that the list is almost endless.

    Adiaphora is a pain in the neck. As far as I can tell, the litmus test for determining what is essential versus what is negotiable will vary depending on the foundational principles and beliefs of the person making the decision, plus we will all vary in wisdom, knowledge, and personal preferences. For Lutherans, the litmus test is primarily God’s Word of justification by faith and faithfully serving our neighbor.

    I don’t worry about making perfect decisions or doing things perfectly for the doctrine of total depravity shatters that kind of hubris. I also don’t worry about being a sinner for my faith is not in myself. I turn to Christ, my mediator, who has offered himself up for me. I also ask forgiveness from my neighbor when I fail. Sin is not a matter of “IF” but when. No one can avoid being a sinner in thought, word, or deed while in this mortal body. My primary concerns are about anything that would like to supplant faith in Christ, the Lamb of God.

    Regarding the question of burial versus cremation, it is adiaphora. In making a decision about whether to bury or cremate Christians, I am informed by the examples of both scripture and church tradition. My central principles and beliefs lead me to choose to arrange funerals for Christians that will bear witness to justification by faith in Christ and that will serve my neighbors with the proclamation of the gospel in both word and symbol. Therefore, I choose burial.

    Ken Myers has wisdom that can helpful, in All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, he writes: “I believe that the challenge of living with popular culture may well be as serious for modern Christians as persecution and plagues were for the saints of earlier centuries.”

    It is in adiaphora that we most often find ourselves with decisions that require us to face: culture, temptation, our sin nature, and so forth. Pax.

    Like

  284. Jeff, that unwise can (and is) used to cover sin doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to toss the distinction between unwise and wrong. (Sort of like how just because sinners read general revelation wrong doesn’t mean general revelation is deficient.) Without such a distnction I just don’t see what would then keep anyone from being prosecuted for being a jacka$$ before he becomes a criminal. And what happens to any notions of gray area or warning and opportunity for people to show better judgment before things turn into a trainwreck?

    So it seems to me that the impulse to erase gray areas has something in common with the denial of the sufficiency of general revelation: both don’t seem to like the fact that we must live with things like uncertainty, regret and human weakness. So special revelation must make up for human deficiencies in reading general revelation (though that doesn’t solve anything, if the plethora of vital differences that exist between Spirit-indwelt-Bible-readers means anything) and things that used to be reckoned unwise are now just wrong. I can see how some think that might make life easier, but notonly am I skeptical that it would but it sure doesn’t align with the real life I live.

    P.S. my wife disagrees with me and thinks more like you.

    Like

  285. Zrim,

    I keep thinking about your comment to Jeff on the sufficiency of general revelation. I don’t understand the debates about GR and SR. Neither one is going to answer every question that we come up with. It seems that every turn we take shows us we are fallen created beings and that we do not have all the answers. The only certainty and sufficiency that we are given is in Christ crucified. He is our all in all. He is the only one who can resolve the difference between what we are and what we should be. Our only hope is in Christ, so we turn to him in all things.

    I know I’ve been giving a pretty Lutheran perspective in these last few comments, but that’s all I have to offer. I try, but I just don’t know how to speak Reformed and I can’t help scratching my head about some of the things ya’ll try to resolve. I’m beginning to think Lutherans are just more comfortable with paradox and mystery.

    Like

  286. Actually, Lily, that is my own point. The discomfort Jeff’s side of the table has is with paradox and mystery, and I think the attempt to close the gap on human deficiency is a quest for religious certainty. So I think you understand more than you admit, which may mean that some Reformed could benefit from understanding that Lutherans really are our closest theological relatives (that the GC doesn’t have any should give pause).

    Like

  287. Zrim – sweet! It’s so good to hear we are in harmony. 🙂

    What is the GC?

    Re: “I think the attempt to close the gap on human deficiency is a quest for religious certainty.”

    I think you are right. To put it in a slightly different way: they are stumbling on Christ and haven’t figured that out yet. In a similar fashion, the experts who think that disciplining bad logic is justifiable are in the same boat. I can understand their dilemma though, I was slip-sliding and running into the ditch trying to play by their rules earlier.

    I had to chuckle when I read, “…some Reformed could benefit from understanding that Lutherans really are our closest theological relatives.” From the Lutheran point of view: Calvin borrowed a lot from Luther and built on it, but he goobered when he was developing his theology and didn’t retain justification by faith as the central doctrine. Most naturally, we know ya’ll disagree. 🙂

    I’m not sure the committed anti-2k type of men will be convincible that Lutheranism has anything to offer. Lutheran theology doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles or room for the expertologist types.

    In our camp, there are Lutheran pastors who do not want to accept that the Reformed have anything to offer. I think the White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation magazine have helped build a bridge. I hope the dialogue between the amiable Lutheran and the amiable Reformed camps continue.

    Like

  289. Lily, the GC is the Gospel Coalition, Presbyterians joining up with shoeless Methodists–I mean Baptists. Come on, it’s a joke.

    Like

  290. Jeff – love your humor! And I’m glad I no longer need one of those durn contraptions!

    Zrim – I caught the joke. We have similar jokes for the Lutheran churches that have strayed in evangelical La-La land.

    Like

  291. Zrim,

    I would like to thank you for answering my questions and challenging on me things. You had written at one point,”I think you understand more than you admit.” Actually, I don’t. You have made me work at this! I appreciate you pointing out my inconsistencies and not giving up on me. 🙂

    Jeff,

    I would like to thank you too. Sheesh(!), you make me work hard trying to dialogue/debate with you on things we disagree on or are trying to find where we agree. I both enjoyed and wanted to strangle you (and me) a time or two. I would never have been forced to better understand and try to articulate what I believe and why without you. Gracias. 🙂

    Like

  292. Lily, Jeff and Zrim,

    I enjoyed staying on the sidelines while observing how you 3 hashed things out. Lily reminds me of me when I first started blogging at Zrim’s Outhouse. Except I think she is a lot more insightful and diplomatic than myself. You don’t have to be apologetic to the Calvinists, they respect you more if you are able to hold your ground and stick to it.

    I was reminded again of one of the subtle differences between Lutherans and Calvinists during our Bible study this morning. We studied Mathew chapter 18. This is the famous chapter on the paradox and mystery of forgiveness and church discipline. My pastor made the poignant remark that we are to treat those whom we discipline like tax collectors and pagans. Yeah, and Jesus was pretty forgiving to both of them. Even after they were ex-communicated and forbidden to take communion. Chew on that for awhile.

    Like

  293. John,

    I wondered where you were! You are too kind. Good grief, the disheveled, disorganized thinking, and trying to stick to natural law to support burial was a disaster. It was much easier to completely give-up and revert to Lutheran speak. I’ll keep in mind that I don’t have to apologize to these Calvinist rascals, but old habits die hard. Truthfully, I am appreciative for the way they challenged me and made me think, forced me to try to organize my thoughts and words better. I still may not make sense, but perhaps I’m learning to be a bit more coherent – I hope so.

    In Matthew 18, it seems so clear that church discipline is reserved for unrepentant sinners and the marvelous office of the keys is for all of us. I’m not sure we will ever convince these staid Calvinists on how wonderful the practice of confession and absolution in Lutherandom is for the soul and conscience. They keep turning their noses up at our turtle soup. 🙂

    Like

  294. Re: Heretics

    Ok, I confess up front that I would like to redeem myself from heretic purgatory for some earlier comments, but I also thought ya’ll would get a bang out this story (and be encouraged) if you catechize your kids, plus it would be nice to keep DGH entertained since the poor soul will miss the Superbowl.

    Heresy as a Teaching Moment
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/heresy-as-a-teaching-moment

    Long snip:

    Bright young ladies, both excellent students at their respective excellent schools, my seventh grade catechism students pay attention, ask good questions, and remember interesting little facts like “Hildegard of Bingen was a twelfth century mystic and writer.” But even I was surprised when they told me they completely understand the Incarnation.

    Their textbook breaks the Apostles’ Creed into its twelve statements of faith. We got all the way to number seven, “There are two natures in Jesus: divine and human,” when one of my precocious pupils interrupted. “I totally get it,” she explained. “It’s easy.” I was skeptical, especially as point number eight notes that the Incarnation is a mystery. I asked her to explain.

    She drew me a Venn diagram. The outermost circle represented divine nature and inside it she placed three circles to represent the three persons of the Trinity. She inscribed “human nature” inside the second person. “Manichean!” I thundered, slamming my fist on the table. “Let her be expelled who has the mad idea that the servant-form Christ took from us is of a heavenly or some other kind of being!”

    Not really. But I did note that in her illustration, the “human” nature of Christ was in fact “divine nature.” And as the Manicheans noticed, if the “human” nature is really divine, what looked like a human nature in the gospel accounts of Jesus was just an appearance. Jesus walking, eating, weeping—it would all be just an illusion. This leaves a Manichean, St. Thomas notes, in a tough spot. For the gospel doesn’t say that Jesus appeared to walk, eat, or weep; it says he did those things. And if Scripture errs on this matter, how can we trust it on any other matter?

    But my students are not the sort to be deterred by one little charge of heresy. So armed with their newly heightened awareness that the Incarnation unites two natures—one fully human and one fully divine—they were determined to grasp just how those two natures are united.

    “It’s like cookie dough” one of the girls explained. “You have sugar cookie dough and chocolate cookie dough and when you combine them and bake it you have . . .” but before I could bellow, “May your tongue and mind which have formed such blasphemy be burned up by divine fire!” she had realized her own mistake. If you combine sugar cookie dough and chocolate cookie dough, you get neither a sugar cookie nor a chocolate cookie.

    She had resurrected the error of the heresiarch Eutyches. If the Incarnation, the union of God and man, were a union in the nature, we would have neither God nor man as a result. We would have to admit that divine nature had changed, and if it were capable of change, it wouldn’t be divine nature: “For I the Lord do not change” (Malichi 3:6).

    So we tried again. And this time the mistake was mine. I should have stuck with Aquinas, in trying to offer them an analogy, and talked about the soul’s relation to the body, but instead I talked about the sole’s relation to a shoe. “Take your foot. You could wear a ballet shoe or a tap shoe and, depending on the shoe you’re wearing, the motion of your one foot will be expressed differently,” I said, and their faces lit up with comprehension. “I get it!” exclaimed one of the girls, “the Divine person who is not distinct from his nature puts on human nature when he wants to do human things like going to weddings and eating fish!”

    I was hatching a nest of Nestorians. If Christ puts on human nature like we put on shoes—or as Nestorius would have it, like a God dwelling in his temple—his union with human nature would not really be a union at all. And from there it’s, just a hop, skip, and a jump to claiming that the Incarnation, in fact, has twopersons and then it would not be true that the “Word became flesh,” and we would be left, once again, wondering why Scripture deceived us.

    “No, no!” I quickly qualified. “It’s like two shoes you wear on one foot at the same time and you never take them off and they’re fused to your foot.”

    “Disgusting!” exclaimed one of the girls. “Do you even know what you’re talking about?”

    “No!” I wanted to retort.

    “This is impossible!” cried the other.

    “You’re right!” I was ready to agree, with just a minute or so left of class and two very disgruntled seventh graders staring me down from across the table. Then my former Manichean countered, “We know it’s not impossible because it happened.”

    If you want to hear how this story ended, you will need to click the link. 🙂

    Like

  295. I said: “Yeah, and Jesus was pretty forgiving to both of them. Even after they were ex-communicated and forbidden to take communion.”

    I should have said Jesus was good to tax collectors and pagans and treated them with respect and dignity even though they did not deserve it. Paul says not to have anything to do with a brother who is unrepentant of his sin. I always got confused on how to deal with situations like that.

    We Lutherans tend to carry on our caricatures of Calvinists in less than flattering ways more often than not. One of those caricatures is that Lutherans center the Christian life around the doctrine of justification by faith alone and Calvinist’s don’t. They tend to center the Christian life around the sovereignty of God. I know many Calvinists who would refute that caricature.

    Like

  296. John,

    I meant my teasing about Lutherans and Calvinists to be taken as good-natured fun. I am sorry it did not come off that way. I enjoy the differences and similarities in our traditions and never meant any of my teasing as a slur, ding, or negative.

    Also, in my joking about the differences in our theologies, I didn’t say the Sovereignty of God was the central doctrine in their theology. I only said justification by faith was central to Lutheran theology. I may be all wet, but I thought their central doctrine was Union with Christ?

    Like

  297. Lily: Nice anecdote.

    There is substantial debate on this site, no less, as to whether the center of Calvin’s thought is properly Justification, Union, the Holy Spirit, or Predestination, or Covenant, or something else.

    Or all of the above.

    Like

  299. I thought it was Sinclair Ferguson, but I could be wrong. I’ve had a lot of exposure to other Reformed teachers since I met him. Now you’ve got me curious – does this sound like Sinclair?

    Sinclair is the first Reformed teacher I had much exposure to and I love him to pieces. I went to classes Sinclair taught at Park Cities Presbyterian in Dallas with Presby buddies for about 3 months. This was about 6 years ago when Sinclair was teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary in Dallas and he was a member of Park Cities. I also read several of his books back then. He’s a fabulous teacher and I’m hooked on his Scottish brogue. I really missed him when he accepted the pastorate in North Carolina and stopped going to classes with my Presby friends.
    .

    Like

  300. DGH – I remember Sinclair talking about union with Christ and referring to it many times, but I’m not sure that he said it was central. After thinking about it more, I don’t remember any Reformed teachers that I was exposed to later on talking about union with Christ at all or saying what they thought was central…? Did I read it in one your books? (joshing you here) :/

    I am still perplexed by Jeff’s comment on the debates about “whether the center of Calvin’s thought is properly Justification, Union, the Holy Spirit, or Predestination, or Covenant, or something else.” I did not know this was controversial. Is there any consensus at WTS – CA? I would very much appreciate your help so I do not misrepresent the Reformed in the future. Gracias.

    Like

  301. Jeff – regarding the anecdote. Do you mean the story about the kids trying to figure out Christ’s two natures? If so, I thought it was hoot and great encouragement for anyone catechizing their kids (or adults!). It makes me wonder how many times a poor pastor’s eyes inwardly roll during a class at times? 🙂

    And thanks for letting me know I stumbled into a controversial area. I’ll try to keep my nose clean and stay away from that topic.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.