Ship of Fools: Does Christianity have anything to say to the bereaved?

Thread: Does Christianity have anything to say to the bereaved? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020024

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Down the ages christian teaching has had answers to the questions that folk commonly asked, even if they were wrong.

Our questions today are expected to be answered by science, not the church. Except perhaps the most personal one.

I met an elderly lady acquaintance who in the course of conversation asked rather wistfully if she would see her parents again.

I said she would. My church gives no justification for my answer.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

I would draw justification for your answer from the Nicene creed statement We believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting
And from the gospels' accounts of Jesus resurrection body- he seemed able to meet with who he chose to, and his disciples were able to recognise him

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Was she looking for that standard answer and reassurance we know it all as fact, or for something else? Such as personal support? Like that we are hopeful, but whatever it is, we will be with each other and she will have all the support possible. One answer may right in one situation, another else time.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Christians believe in life after death, the resurrection gives us the hope and promise that we will be together with our loved ones eternally.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I said she would. My church gives no justification for my answer.

I agree that this is a curiosity.

The average American (I can't speak for people elsewhere) vaguely expects to awake after death in the afterlife and then go to heaven or hell.

When loved ones die this expectation becomes more pronounced and definite.

Yet few Christian churches other than my own actually teach this. The more correct theological answer involves being raised at the last day, with no gender, or marital, familial or social attachments.

Swedenborgians, on the other hand, explicitly describe an afterlife that commences immediately after death, in a more perfect world, with gender, and marital, familial and social relationships intact.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:Was she looking for that standard answer and reassurance we know it all as fact, or for something else?

As it was a street conversation I think she she was just looking for reassurance, knowing that I attended a church. But it still made me stop and think.

In the circumstances the creed seems opaque.

I have recently had a much deeper conversation with someone else in order to reassure, but it did call upon my very liberal perspective.

It just seems a great pity that the church has not developed an understandable theology from the insights given by Jesus and Paul. Or is there one?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:The more correct theological answer involves being raised at the last day, with no gender,

I agree with this Gospel teaching but it takes a bit of explaining. To my mind it does square with Paul (1 Corinthians 15) where he talks about the resurrection body and is probably more explicable than most christian teaching about 'justification' etc.

What do we say to the irreligious majority?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Swedenborgians, on the other hand, explicitly describe an afterlife that commences immediately after death, in a more perfect world, with gender, and marital, familial and social relationships intact.

That's the one which rests easiest with myself. Presuming it is up to us to choose which version of life after death we prefer.
I blend it with that which Jesus said when the Pharisees tried to trip Him up with the hypothetical question -- who would a person would be married to in Heaven if he'd had several wives on earth? He referred to us being "Like the Angels".

In other words it will be a state we cannot fully comprehend whereby earthly values, institutions and normal experience don't come into it.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I was wondering whether the woman in the OP has a concern that either she or her parents might not wind up in heaven. Many churches are adamant that only a few - only those professing just the right faith - will go to heaven. There are many Christians with serious doubts about their own soul, and/or near certainty that their loved ones are in hell. That's the harder issue, I think.

I personally believe (and my church - Episcopal - is not dogmatic about these things) that we all live forever in the presence of God, but those who don't want to be there experience it as hell...until they (hopefully) realign themselves and choose love. So I have no problem giving a hearty "Yes!" to the question. Although I accept that I could be wrong. None of us really has certainty, but we do have faith, and hope.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If they don't ask, minimally 'My condolences'. They never ask. If they did, 'All will be well'. And variants, like: 'We're all heading home'.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christians believe in life after death, the resurrection gives us the hope and promise that we will be together with our loved ones eternally.

I don't know if you are clergy. But this sort of response had me walking away, shaking my head, muttering, in my past. I wanted to say in such a context: "No. All Christians don't believe that. Some hope it might be true. Some don't care and wish we would stop behaving like eternal life was the important piece of Christianity."

This woman probably fears or worries about something, though that's unclear. Probably many of us have been in parallel circumstances to her. Eternal life-ism like born again-ism may be irrelevant to immediate feelings.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christians believe in life after death, the resurrection gives us the hope and promise that we will be together with our loved ones eternally.
I don't know if you are clergy. But this sort of response had me walking away, shaking my head, muttering, in my past. I wanted to say in such a context: "No. All Christians don't believe that. Some hope it might be true. Some don't care and wish we would stop behaving like eternal life was the important piece of Christianity."

This woman probably fears or worries about something, though that's unclear. Probably many of us have been in parallel circumstances to her. Eternal life-ism like born again-ism may be irrelevant to immediate feelings.

I do think it a very important aspect of the Christian religion, that we believe in life after death. You will see that I spoke of hope and promise. This is a vital narrative in the teaching of Jesus, throughout the New Testament, and through the millennia in Christian thinking. It's one that people have corrupted, as ever, but it stands.

The lady asked wistfully whether she would see her parents again. The reassurance of the Christian belief of an after-life would, I believe, have been a comfort. Shadeson said she would, but couldn't see that this was the teaching of the church. I see it as compatible with the teaching of the church. There is no need to go into the theological arguments one way or another with her. We can, of course, do so here.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I said she would. My church gives no justification for my answer.

I would suggest looking at the funeral service as that would be one statement on question.

Also possible the text of some of hymns in authorised collections which speak of the here after.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
'All will be well' Martin

Julian of Norwich. Always seemed like an empty platitude. I think far more has been revealed to us for our comfort, so when there are tears and loss Christians should be able to offer more than tea and biscuits.

And people aren't too worried about their soul - just the separation from those they love.

quote:
it will be a state we cannot fully comprehend whereby earthly values, institutions and normal experience don't come into it.rolyn

Again, we can say from the Gospels that the 'life to come' is in the Kingdom of God - where the will of God prevails.

Because 'it will be a state we cannot fully comprehend', we must be born into it - recreated.

That in itself will be a blessing to most people as the suffering we can do little about is caused by man's inhumanity coupled with the trauma and memories of it.

I am sure this is understandable as simple theology which can be seen in both Jesus and Paul's teaching.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I do think it a very important aspect of the Christian religion, that we believe in life after death. You will see that I spoke of hope and promise. This is a vital narrative in the teaching of Jesus, throughout the New Testament, and through the millennia in Christian thinking.
<snip>
The lady asked wistfully whether she would see her parents again. The reassurance of the Christian belief of an after-life would, I believe, have been a comfort. Shadeson said she would, but couldn't see that this was the teaching of the church. I see it as compatible with the teaching of the church.

I agree that church doctrine does not contradict this, but I'm not sure that it explicitly states this.

Moo

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

This thread reminds me of the occasions when Rev. Adam Smallbone touched on the delicate matter of Heaven. One time in particular was when he gave a tender and gently worded explanation to a woman, not long for this life, on how God will forgive her in the afterlife.
After brief consideration she replies "What happens if God doesn't exist?".

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@shadeson, damrite. That's all people want, confident platitudes.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The interesting thing to me is that the popular concept of heaven and the afterlife seems to have only the vaguest connection with the Christian faith as such. God may be somewhere in the vicinity, but not particularly as a central character.

This being so, I'm not sure if the 'Christian' notion of the dead rising from death at a later date and somehow 'facing' God is likely to be meaningful to the average person. People just want to believe that their deceased loved one is 'looking down on them from heaven'. A friend of mine who identifies as CofE prays to God but knows little about orthodox Christianity; she was taken aback when I said I didn't really believe in the 'looking down' theory.

Of course mainstream modern Christianity doesn't say much about the afterlife/heaven anyway. It's a subject for funerals, but not given much airtime otherwise. The sociologists put that down to the security and comforts of modern life. We don't need heaven all that much.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Our questions today are expected to be answered by science, not the church.

Really? I think that rather depends on the questions. Your mileage clearly varies and perhaps what you've said isn't what you mean; if it is, then I disagree with you from the outset.

quote:
Originally posted by No Prophet
...stop behaving like eternal life was the important piece of Christianity.

Isn't it? Christianity being based upon the bloke who said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live," I'd have thought "eternal life" was pretty clearly an important piece of Christianity.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

quote:
Originally posted by No Prophet
...stop behaving like eternal life was the important piece of Christianity.
Isn't it? Christianity being based upon the bloke who said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live," I'd have thought "eternal life" was pretty clearly an important piece of Christianity.

Yes.

And I think that we all understand that "eternal life" begins in the present.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It'd be far better if we loved our neighbours as ourselves. The eternal life emphasis has done naught to make the world a less fearsome place.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Ideally, emphasis on eternal life leads us to love our neighbor as ourselves in the here and now.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

quote:
Originally posted by No Prophet
...stop behaving like eternal life was the important piece of Christianity.
Isn't it? Christianity being based upon the bloke who said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live," I'd have thought "eternal life" was pretty clearly an important piece of Christianity.
Yes.

And I think that we all understand that "eternal life" begins in the present.

How can it start in the present? That means starting at a time, whereas what is eternal is beyond time.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I agree that church doctrine does not contradict this, but I'm not sure that it explicitly states this.

Moo

If Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus on the mountain, and God is of the living and not of the dead, the Bible says it. Of course, we have no guarantee that everyone will meet up in heaven - quite the opposite - but we have the hope of it for everyone, as we do not know who will be there and who won't, only God knows.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

quote:
And I think that we all understand that "eternal life" begins in the present.

How can it start in the present? That means starting at a time, whereas what is eternal is beyond time. (Gee D)

Your understanding of 'eternal' doesn't quite fit the original Greek term used in the Gospels, which literally means 'of the age/ages'. So the meaning of eternal life is closer to the idea of life of the age of the Kingdom. So rather than a focus on time (or beyond time), it's a focus on quality. Eternal does not need to have a start or an ending (that would be 'everlasting' life) thus the life of the age to come can be experienced here and now as well as after death.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It'd be far better if we loved our neighbours as ourselves. The eternal life emphasis has done naught to make the world a less fearsome place.

I agree that an emphasis on loving our neighbours as ourselves (as well as loving God) is to be commended highly. But the narratives we have to suggest that eternal life follows judgement. You left that bit out, as many do. I invite you to compare this fuller scenario with one that involves no judgement, then get back to me on which one facilitates the world being a more fearsome place.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

"...the narratives we have do suggest..."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Judgement is something to look forward to, even the legendarily cruel and callous Sodom and Gomorrah get a more than bearable one from Jesus.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Ideally, emphasis on eternal life leads us to love our neighbor as ourselves in the here and now.

I think 2000 years of Christianity being the foundations of western politics and economy is more than enough to understand that eternal life-ism has screwed up the world. How many wars? How many refugees created? Currently, a dried out Africa where people sell a kidney to pay a smuggler to put them on a leaky boat to Europe. Where farming to make torillas doesn't earn a living because of subsidised corn dumped into the country. And deportations. No, eternal life is the foundation of me-ism. Where business is more important than anything. And unbelievably, "Christians" vote for this.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Eternal life is the foundation of me-ism. Where business is more important than anything. And unbelievably, "Christians" vote for this.

The interesting question is whether Christians who believe in eternal life are more likely to be selfish than those who don't.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think 2000 years of Christianity being the foundations of western politics and economy is more than enough to understand that eternal life-ism has screwed up the world. How many wars? How many refugees created? Currently, a dried out Africa where people sell a kidney to pay a smuggler to put them on a leaky boat to Europe. Where farming to make torillas doesn't earn a living because of subsidised corn dumped into the country. And deportations. No, eternal life is the foundation of me-ism. Where business is more important than anything. And unbelievably, "Christians" vote for this.

I'm not sure I really see that "belief in eternal life" is to blame for the ills you cite; it seems to be based on a rather warped logic.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

quote:
And I think that we all understand that "eternal life" begins in the present.

How can it start in the present? That means starting at a time, whereas what is eternal is beyond time. (Gee D)
Your understanding of 'eternal' doesn't quite fit the original Greek term used in the Gospels, which literally means 'of the age/ages'. So the meaning of eternal life is closer to the idea of life of the age of the Kingdom. So rather than a focus on time (or beyond time), it's a focus on quality. Eternal does not need to have a start or an ending (that would be 'everlasting' life) thus the life of the age to come can be experienced here and now as well as after death.

I have virtually no Greek at all, so thank you for your comments. AIUI, eternal is Latin in origin, and so there may well have been a shift in meaning with the translations to Latin, then into our English.

As to your last sentence though, I still see eternal in modern usage, informed by Einstein's work and that of later cosmologists. Ages and time only exist in the created universe, every bit as much as space and matter. What is eternal is beyond this creation.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
But the narratives we have do (have) suggest that eternal life follows judgement Honest Ron

Yes, judgement. I suppose I knew that was going to come up.

I could hardly talk about this with a gentle old lady.
And it's not something you want to discuss especially as the church is even more vague about this than eternal life.

Though it seems this has completely fouled up our ability to talk sensibly to those nearing the end of life. So the church must talk platitudes.

I can only say that no one understands what justice is and anyone knowing in eternal life what they did in this life is probably the nearest thing.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If loving your neighbour as yourself was the foundation, would we be in the greed world we're in? Because we have the idea that grace gives you eternal life, the focus on the works side - which is all about not doing for others if we consider Jesus' example - is a little bit of donating, today, clicking "like". But we got our Ticket to Heaven.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Loving our neighbours as ourselves comes second to loving God with the whole of our selves, there is no room for selfishness. This comes from the deception of the world, it's a temptation we find hard to resist.

The idea that we've got a ticket to heaven reminds me of those who thought they were OK as Abraham was their ancestor.

I like to think that as God understands, and God loves, and God has compassion, that we will all ultimately find ourselves in heaven. But will those who do evil knowingly? Or, as suggested, will knowing it eternally be punishment in itself?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Ideally, emphasis on eternal life leads us to love our neighbor as ourselves in the here and now.
I think 2000 years of Christianity being the foundations of western politics and economy is more than enough to understand that eternal life-ism has screwed up the world. How many wars? How many refugees created? Currently, a dried out Africa where people sell a kidney to pay a smuggler to put them on a leaky boat to Europe. Where farming to make torillas doesn't earn a living because of subsidised corn dumped into the country. And deportations. No, eternal life is the foundation of me-ism. Where business is more important than anything. And unbelievably, "Christians" vote for this.

(Emphasis added)

I don't agree that an emphasis on eternal life is the foundation of me-ism because I'm sure me-ism would be just as strong without any concept of eternal life. Instead, me-ism has seized on the Protestant Christian doctrine of salvation by faith alone as an opportunity to excuse itself.

Trying to remove the emphasis on personal salvation is one way to try to counter me-ism, but that has the problem of running counter to the hints we find in the New Testament about eternal life. On the other hand, if you take the view that saving faith can only grow out of our attempts to live according to the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, then the hope for salvation in the afterlife can act as an appropriate counter to me-ism.

[ 12. December 2016, 05:18: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

quote:
Gee D:- I still see eternal in modern usage, informed by Einstein's work and that of later cosmologists. Ages and time only exist in the created universe, every bit as much as space and matter. What is eternal is beyond this creation.

I agree to a point. If something is beyond this creation, it doesn't necessarily mean that aspects of it cannot be experienced within creation. God is 'eternal' but we can encounter God within this creation - Jesus being the ultimate encounter as the incarnation, becoming flesh so we could behold his glory.

Jesus also proclaimed that the Kingdom of God was here among us, he promised his followers that they would live life to the full. Both these ideas (and others) point to that which is beyond creation breaking into creation now, not just in the future. Scholars refer to this as realised and unrealised eschatology - here now, and not yet.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

An old friend once asked what I thought would happen when he arrived in Heaven to meet the two wives he had outlived. He had been an elder of the Kirk for at least half of his hundred years by the time he died, and he still didn't have a good answer, and I certainly didn't. I didn't tell him I thought it was the wrong question. I know what various Biblical passages say about it, and I've heard all sorts of convenient and comforting explanations, but millions of people don't know or feel the need to know, and I am pretty sure I'll find out one way or another if and when I need to. Meanwhile, I have more pressing stuff to deal with.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

Mentioned earlier, and as far as I am concerned not at all platitudinous, Julian of Norwich's deceptively simple, but thoroughly thought through response on being asked to sum up her understanding of the upsets and worries of this life in relation to the presence of God: 'All shall be well...'

Some things we can wonder about, but in the end if God is God (as revealed through Christ), then we can be confident to get on with our lives here and now without needing to be burdened/crushed by questions we cannot presently answer, or worries that it's all down to us to figure out or get right.

That must include our dying, and it does as I see on an almost daily basis in my work with people who are facing the end of their own lives, or of the life of someone they love very dearly.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

I agree to a point. If something is beyond this creation, it doesn't necessarily mean that aspects of it cannot be experienced within creation. God is 'eternal' but we can encounter God within this creation - Jesus being the ultimate encounter as the incarnation, becoming flesh so we could behold his glory.

Jesus also proclaimed that the Kingdom of God was here among us, he promised his followers that they would live life to the full. Both these ideas (and others) point to that which is beyond creation breaking into creation now, not just in the future. Scholars refer to this as realised and unrealised eschatology - here now, and not yet.

Indeed the Word became incarnate, and on His ascension took back with Him His human nature, re-uniting the creation and its Creator.

I'm not as sure about your second paragraph though, interesting though it is. My main problem is that to some extent it assumes that beyond creation is only in the future; I'd say that the beyond-creation exists full stop, totally beyond our concept of time.

[ 12. December 2016, 19:55: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Time is now from eternity. Always will be. God necessarily encompasses that.

And as to the OP, it's all about what we bring to the party. Faith, hope and charity would be good. Not being faithless, hopeless, uncharitable, fearful, ignorant, miserable, little bastards.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I don't agree that an emphasis on eternal life is the foundation of me-ism because I'm sure me-ism would be just as strong without any concept of eternal life. Instead, me-ism has seized on the Protestant Christian doctrine of salvation by faith alone as an opportunity to excuse itself.

Trying to remove the emphasis on personal salvation is one way to try to counter me-ism, but that has the problem of running counter to the hints we find in the New Testament about eternal life. On the other hand, if you take the view that saving faith can only grow out of our attempts to live according to the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, then the hope for salvation in the afterlife can act as an appropriate counter to me-ism.

It's a lot easier to worship Christ than to live like Jesus, which seems to me to the heart of the matter.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Yes, well said.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

2nded

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's a lot easier to worship Christ than to live like Jesus, which seems to me to the heart of the matter.

It's certainly very hard to live like Jesus - as even his closest friends noted.

But Christianity is actually a religion in which it's very easy to go without 'worship'. Most British Christians, and probably most Christians around the world, see 'worship' as fairly optional.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Time is now from eternity. Always will be. God necessarily encompasses that.

Sorry Martin, I don't understand that. Time is a necessary part of creation, but not part of the Creator's realm. The incarnation was God entering into the creation with its faults, its time and space, its potential.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

How old is time? When did it start? How is anything not in God's realm?

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
I think 2000 years of Christianity being the foundations of western politics and economy is more than enough to understand that eternal life-ism has screwed up the world. No Prophet

I can understand that the idea of eternal life can corrupt behaviour in this one. Especially if it is regarded as a reward for a belief. Suicide bombers are modern examples together with Christians who think faith is all that is needed to please God. But I think the rant misses the point.
Generally, people don't want their life to end.

Which of you by taking thought would not add one year to their (healthy) life?

Strictly speaking it might be an evolutionary thing but in practice it's just the pleasure of social contact which makes life desirable.

Didn't Jesus say something about having more brothers and sisters in the life to come?

So when life comes to an end christians at least should have a coherent message.

I know there are problems with NT theology but that would bring me to a rant about us having the same problem as Islam - the words in a book are holy and inerrant and fixed according to traditional interpretation.

quote:
It's a lot easier to worship Christ than to live like Jesus, which seems to me to the heart of the matter No Prophet

That's a virtuous but rather simplistic statement.

We cannot live like Jesus. We can obey his commands 'which are not grievous'

We have to live lives in married relationships and ordinary ones with unbelieving folk around. Otherwise we could live in monasteries. But it's not most peoples choice.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How old is time? When did it start? How is anything not in God's realm?

Time started at the Big Bang/Creation/Whatever, along with the other dimensions we know of. It is part of God's creation, to use your approach. His realm is much larger than this universe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The universe is but one in a concurrent growing infinity from eternity. God has been doing universes, creating, incarnating forever.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Quite so Martin. God's Eternity is like the ocean and we are riding on the HMS Universe.

Not that I'd necessarily want to say to a recently bereaved person that their loved one had simply fallen into God's sea. Rather easier than getting into all that Heaven and Hell stuff though.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Quite so Martin. God's Eternity is like the ocean and we are riding on the HMS Universe.

Not that I'd necessarily want to say to a recently bereaved person that their loved one had simply fallen into God's sea. Rather easier than getting into all that Heaven and Hell stuff though.

If we are already in God's sea, it may be the greater consciousness of this that we can look forward to when we die.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

This is a fascinating thread to read.
I am not sure death really ends the relationship we have with those we love.
I believe...
As we are created in the image of God, Imago Dei, I believe that that image of God is relational. The Trinity is example of relationship and Christ both example and point of reference in order we can participate in the Trinitarian love or dance...
As relational beings, I think relationship continues. When others have touched our hearts, that touch continues when we reflect upon them.
Being alive is secondary to this.
Life is different when someone dies. There is a person sized space in our soul/psyche. Life continues but it is different.
My answer to whether I can continue relationship after someone dies is, I think we can continue now. Imperfectly (as when they were alive), but still able to continue.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

When my mother was terminally ill she asked me if her parents and sister would be waiting for her when she died. Knowing what she wanted to hear I said "yes" as positively as I could and she was comforted ( I know this from her demeanour and from something she said to Dad). This is not actually what I believe, but it wasn't the time to enter into theological debate, and who knows anyway?

Then, when she died someone who was hoping to offer comfort asserted that she would be "looking down (on me) from heaven." Even though I didn't believe it I was totally freaked out. I remember her with love, but to have her "looking down from heaven" sounded really threatening.

Huia

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I remember her with love, but to have her "looking down from heaven" sounded really threatening.

This is where I am grateful to have what I consider to be solid information about the life after death (even if it is not accepted as solid by most people.)

That is, I think, a perfectly understandable response.

The key to avoiding an understanding of our loved ones "looking down on us" that is not freakish or threatening is to grasp the difference between that nature of our consciousness in the two worlds.

Our loved ones are intimately connected with us spiritually, but they do not consciously look down on us. They live their life.

On the other hand, if they become angels their consciousness is expanded, and they have a clearer awareness of their connection with us and its influence. Hence guardian angels.

That's the Swedenborgian view, for what it is worth. [Biased]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Oops. I said "that is not freakish." I meant "that is freakish."

Here is a one minute video about it.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

To make clear what I have failed to say in this thread.

I believe that Jesus did speak literally to Nicodemus - that we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.There may be parallel meanings for this life as there are in the concept of the Kingdom starting now, but I think there will be a literal re-birth. Literal by some means in a re-created universe in which our inherent character is preserved i.e. female and male mental character included but no sexual differences apart from that.

This means that people who have suffered greatly will have the trauma erased.

It may well be said we would forget those we love, but God is able to make us known to each other - and our past as far as he wishes.

The fact that it is the 'Kingdom of God' means that our will can no longer prevail for any evil action. This will cause suffering to those who have a natural inclination to dominate and are told of their history of cruelty and power over others.(incidentally, this life is the only one where we live 'like god', knowing/experiencing both good and evil)

Since this is all in another time and place and a new creation there is no sense in which we could see our world now - no looking down from heaven!

I believe there will be enough pleasure in bringing up the children born into that re-creation (and heaven knows there are enough of them without even a toe hold in this life) to keep us occupied along with the many things we enjoy now.

Pain will not be a problem. It will bring spice to living, if healing is always possible.

Of course we cannot fully conceive imperishable life in a new creation but we can conceive a varied one which goes on forever.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Not too shabby shadeson, not too shabby.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Our loved ones are intimately connected with us spiritually, but they do not consciously look down on us. They live their life.

The problem I have (one of ignorance) is, what about those who never had loved ones? The Loner who was taught and believes "no one can love you". They have no lover to meet in the afterlife because they "learned" no one loved them. Are they alone forever?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The problem I have (one of ignorance) is, what about those who never had loved ones? The Loner who was taught and believes "no one can love you". They have no lover to meet in the afterlife because they "learned" no one loved them. Are they alone forever?

According to this system no one is alone forever. Everyone has a perfect match, and they meet in heaven if not in this world.

Aside from which, everyone is spiritually in the midst of a community of people like themselves throughout their whole life, although they are never aware of it. This community, which changes according to many factors during a person's lifetime, is intimately connected to the person.

When the person dies they find themselves in the presence of these people, people who are similar to them and who love them. And from there they make choices as to their eternal home and their eternal community.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting question is whether Christians who believe in eternal life are more likely to be selfish than those who don't.

If you don't mind my saying this Svitlana, eternal life is sufficiently fundamental to Christianity that it's a bit difficult to imagine the concept of consistent Christians who don't believe in it.

I haven't been following this thread up until now, but two thoughts to throw in. My apologies if someone has said either of these before:-

1. However consoling it might be just to say things that are nice, we are committed to a message that we say is objectively true. If so, can it ever be right to comfort people with a version of it that is not true? And

2. Going back to the title and the OP, which other belief systems have a message to say to the bereaved?

'That's it folks', as per Dawkins et al, isn't a message.

[ 14. December 2016, 19:31: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We all of us have the Lord ( which is bound to be a greater joy and comfort in the actual experience than it is for most people looking forward!) And as Lewis said, we can pretty safely extrapolate from what we DO know of God to anticipate that, if he takes one good away (say, marriage) it is only to give us something even more fulfilling--not to leave us longing.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We all of us have the Lord ( which is bound to be a greater joy and comfort in the actual experience than it is for most people looking forward!) And as Lewis said, we can pretty safely extrapolate from what we DO know of God to anticipate that, if he takes one good away (say, marriage) it is only to give us something even more fulfilling--not to leave us longing.

Whoever trusts in God this way will surely be blessed. That is most definitely the way to go.

I think, though, that it is easier to believe when we have credible and useful information.

As Enoch just said:

quote:
1. However consoling it might be just to say things that are nice, we are committed to a message that we say is objectively true.

I agree that we should be committed to what is objectively true. I think that we should look for objective truths that will support belief.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

'sall depending, innit?

It depends on whether we believe there's an afterlife or not; pace Enoch, not every Christian does.

Secondly, it depends whether we believe that afterlife will be a pleasant thing for everyone, or some, or none. Most Christians who believe in an afterlife actually, theoretically at any rate, presumably believe the second, as that's the logical position for Evangelicals, and explicitly the teaching of the RCC. And both of them have a distinctly unpleasant afterlife for those who don't get the pleasant one.

So, frankly, no, traditional Christianity doesn't have anything to say to the bereaved (or at least something they'd want to hear) in the majority of cases. Most people do not meet the criteria that the RCC or traditional evangelicalism set up for getting the pleasant afterlife, so in fact the message in most cases would be "Sorry, they're burning in Hell."

Funnily enough, that's not what most people say. Which makes me conclude they don't really believe what their traditions teach. If they did, they'd have been willing to crawl naked over broken glass before bereavement occurred to get the dying on the right path. But they don't.

Compared with that message, Dawkins' one sounds quite positive.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
'sall depending, innit?

Translation?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
'sall depending, innit?
Translation?

'It's all depending, isn't it?'

[mutters]I dunno, y'think yer posting in English....[/mutters]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
'sall depending, innit?
Translation?
'It's all depending, isn't it?'

[mutters]I dunno, y'think yer posting in English....[/mutters]

The rural equivalent here would be " 'pends eh".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting question is whether Christians who believe in eternal life are more likely to be selfish than those who don't.
If you don't mind my saying this Svitlana, eternal life is sufficiently fundamental to Christianity that it's a bit difficult to imagine the concept of consistent Christians who don't believe in it.

It was no prophet's flag is set so... who posited eternal life as a problem, not myself. But with such a diversity of beliefs held by practising Christians, even the clergy, it's hard to imagine that there aren't quite a few who don't really believe in this concept.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I find the concept utterly unimaginable or rather only imaginable as fantasy, utterly unreal, utterly unbelievable. Infinite, eternal, physical reality is perfect, needs no supernatural explanation for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

But then there's Jesus ...

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch

However consoling it might be just to say things that are nice, we are committed to a message that we say is objectively true. If so, can it ever be right to comfort people with a version of it that is not true?

What is your version of the truth? I'm interested to know as I was expecting someone to say something similar.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch

Going back to the title and the OP, which other belief systems have a message to say to the bereaved?

I thought Islam had a teaching.

"But those who die while not believing that“There is no true god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God ” or are not Muslim will lose Paradise forever and will be sent to Hellfire"

Sometimes I think that God allowed Islam to grow to mock our parallel belief system. Especially after watching 'Muslims like us' with the murdererous threats to the Shia by the Sunni over the correct holy succession.

It made me think of the old dispute about St Peter. What Peter said about Jesus vs the man Peter being the rock on which the church is founded.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, not that we would have a theology set in stone.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting question is whether Christians who believe in eternal life are more likely to be selfish than those who don't.
If you don't mind my saying this Svitlana, eternal life is sufficiently fundamental to Christianity that it's a bit difficult to imagine the concept of consistent Christians who don't believe in it.

It was no prophet's flag is set so... who posited eternal life as a problem, not myself. But with such a diversity of beliefs held by practising Christians, even the clergy, it's hard to imagine that there aren't quite a few who don't really believe in this concept.

Not sure about disbelieving or believing, but my position is that it doesn't matter very much, and when the time comes I'll find out. The goal of Christianity being more sensibly and less selfishly to focus on life now, with post-life things not cause anxiety or worry, because they will take care of themselves. Notwithstanding that living forever is both a lovely idea and a horrid one, depending on how things are going.

I know there are cultural Christians who dispose of most supernatural aspects and live in accord with distilled principles from Christianity. Jesus setting an example of how to live, and little more.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Less is more. Less supernatural claims, less accompanying exclusion, literalism, damnationism creates space for more of the beatitudes, more incarnationality, more inclusive trajectory with confidence within and beyond this life.

Heaven can wait.

The trouble is we're so bad at doing the more that I doubt that the less would help. There seems to have to be a lot of the less for there to be any of the more.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry, tangential from this, but damnationism is SO real. So much a part of the dread of the bereaved. I've it encountered time after time at church. The best that is said is "we don't know". A lovely, intelligent, mature, vastly capable woman whose brother committed suicide taking scant, desperate comfort from THAT! Not from good news being proclaimed from the front. All that is said from the front stirs up her anxiety.

Which isn't too tangential, but this might be, I'm on the desk for the homeless and vulnerable Xmas party last night and a young Anglo-Asian guy comes in to hand a Bible in that was given to him by some tract wielder. He didn't want it and didn't want to dispose of it disrespectfully, the his father being a Muslim it turned out, being the reason I suspect, which was touching.

My friend on the desk, a rabidly left wing evangelical, so not bad, inquired as to why? The chap then showed us the tract which contained the prominent threat that if you don't acknowledge Christ on your head be it.

I had a great conversation with him about his heart, his love for his parents, what he cared about, how he walked in the world, about what we bring to the party - especially whoever dragooned him with the tract, about what he thought was in Allah-God's heart. The poor chap was so relieved, so grateful.

I have NEVER known an Anglican congregation in over a decade where that dread isn't rampant and even revelled with.

Because nobody from the front knows otherwise.

I, like on God's intervention, arrogantly, KNOW.

Off to shoot the only Stranvaesia davidiana, the Chinese photinia, in many square miles of Leicester before it's too dark.

[ 17. December 2016, 14:30: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In the MOTR/liberal catholic CofE churches I've come across 'damnationism' wouldn't be entertained. Not publicly, anyway.

The challenge, though, is that without some sort of theological 'damnationism' Christianity becomes both more benign but also less compelling. The disappearance of hell has been proposed as one of the (many) causes of secularisation. Moderate Christians feel less need to evangelise or to share their faith with their children.

I'm not saying that if we reinstated hell our churches would be full. It's too late for that, even if we actually believed in it. And of course evangelism exists outside of hardcore damnationist churches. But my sense is that both evangelism and conversions (where they can be found) now occur principally for this-worldly reasons.

So, to get back on topic, someone who decides to attend church after a bereavement does so not so much in the hope of meeting their loved one in heaven eventually, and certainly not to avoid hell, but in order to feel better now.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I'm not saying that if we reinstated hell our churches would be full. It's too late for that, even if we actually believed in it. And of course evangelism exists outside of hardcore damnationist churches. But my sense is that both evangelism and conversions (where they can be found) now occur principally for this-worldly reasons.

The reintroduction of fire and brimstone, of which a significant part of the Bible is made up, could have a short term evangelical effect but I think way too much water has passed under the Church's bridge for that to strike a chord with anyone much these days.

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 :

So, to get back on topic, someone who decides to attend church after a bereavement does so not so much in the hope of meeting their loved one in heaven eventually, and certainly not to avoid hell, but in order to feel better now.

A sense of community is pretty much all the church can offer now. But even a bereaved person finding solace in a church setting might only be postponing the inevitable.
Lately we hear of people happily married for years, losing their spouse and very quickly finding intimacy and happiness with another. Given this, and the general happiness and pleasure seeking contentment of the vast secular majority appear to enjoy, it often occurs to me that the liberal church has nothing much to say to anyone about anything let alone bereavement.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

I think way too much water has passed under the Church's bridge for [hell] to strike a chord with anyone much these days.

That's what I meant, yes.

quote:

The reintroduction of fire and brimstone, of which a significant part of the Bible is made up, could have a short term evangelical effect.

Do you think so? I think even that's unlikely in most Western environments. OTOH, Martin60's local 'damnationist' congregations are apparently not finding their theology a barrier to attracting and keeping members. This is probably because those churches are committed to evangelism.

I disagree that a large part of the Bible is made up of 'fire and brimstone'. Considering how awful a prospect that stuff is, relatively little is said about it.

quote:
A sense of community is pretty much all the church can offer now.

Interestingly, David Voas, an academic who does research into religious populations, has said the same thing; community is what people might want from churches, not religion. But most people can find a more congenial type of community elsewhere.

quote:
Thd liberal church has nothing much to say to anyone about anything let alone bereavement.

In theory, liberal-leaning churches are better at providing pastoral care than at judging people, so they should be very good places for the bereaved to be.

It would be interesting to know if any research has been done into how different denominations or types of church handle the bereaved, and which approaches are the most effective or the most appreciated.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Yes, despite my own negative posturings I do think the church does has something to offer. Always difficult to pinpoint exactly what that "something" is though.

Hell and damnation does stick in the craw of most, even church goers themselves. The casual observer tends to think some of the really grim stuff is the preserve of OT, that is until anyone actually reads the Bible.
What OT largely appears to be saying is that when you're dead you're dead, (which ironically falls in line with present-day secularism). It is the NT information on what happens to us after we are dead where things tend to get a little complicated.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

SvitlanaV2, where do you find all these MOTR/liberal catholic CofE churches?! I've never found myself in one. Which is a lie. St. Pancras. You couldn't get higher up the candle. You could: All Saints in Northampton. They had a thurible in full swing and you had to turn round at one point! And the priest said 'sod'! But no trace of Mary, whereas she was all over St. Pancras. St. Matthews Northampton was high church it turned out so I couldn't take communion. At least St. Giles were inclusive in that regard, but allowed bizarre claims to be testified. You can't win 'em all.

No wonder millenials are over church.

And rolyn, you ae right. Jesus gives us Hell in spades. We have to get over that. The church has EVERYTHING to offer. Eternal life. In this life and beyond. It has ALL the answers, in the trajectory of Jesus.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2, where do you find all these MOTR/liberal catholic CofE churches?!

I get the impression from the Ship that congregational differences in CofE churchmanship are spread rather unevenly around the country. So one area will have a cluster of liberal catholic churches, another will have a lot of evangelical ones, etc. This seems a bit daft, because it reduces the amount of choice available for a given community. But I suppose there are historical reasons for it.

In the broad area around me, liberal catholic seems to predominate. Towards the inner city end you get more Anglo-Catholic ones, and that's made obvious because they write it on their noticeboards.

One Sunday I did go to an evangelical service at a CofE church not far away, but the very small (though well-heeled) congregation was dwarfed in its cavernous church, and there was no sense of cultural ascendancy or dominance.

Perhaps in your area the historical Nonconformists are the ones to turn to if you prefer non-conservative Protestant options? With the partial exception of the Baptists, though, they probably don't provide much competition for the 'damnationist' CofE congregations. Comments on the Ship imply that many churchgoers would rather have the rituals and heritage of a disagreeable form of Anglicanism than the less sacramental or liturgical worship of a more moderate and tolerant Nonconformity.

Or, to go back to rolyn, maybe the CofE simply offers a more attractive community life, and what it officially says or doesn't say about the afterlife is largely irrelevant to many of its attenders.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I will if I want and I will if I don't want SvitlanaV2! In other words I feel compelled to stay no matter what. No matter how bad. And it's bad the great majority of the time. Damnationism and the prophetic. There are six of us I know of out of six hundred. Liberals. It'll be in the novel. If Oasis was within walking distance mind ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Six hundred! Forgive me, but you sound like a small fish in a very big pond. You might have a more significant impact in a more normal sized congregation. (The average congregation had 108 members in 2010, according to Church Statistics). It's the big churches that can run the big social projects, though, so I understand why you'd choose that environment. We all have to do what seems best for us.

To those (churches) who have, more will be given.

[ 19. December 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There's no other shoal SvitlanV2. And yeah I'm a little, old grey fish who can't fit in on the inside but turns up and sings the hymns and gets to swim on the wild side on a Friday night.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 In theory, liberal-leaning churches are better at providing pastoral care than at judging people, so they should be very good places for the bereaved to be. [/QB]

Where do you get that idea from? It's not true IME of 40 years of church experience - the Liberals are far more judgmental once the surface niceness is scratched.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 In theory, liberal-leaning churches are better at providing pastoral care than at judging people, so they should be very good places for the bereaved to be.
Where do you get that idea from? It's not true IME of 40 years of church experience - the Liberals are far more judgmental once the surface niceness is scratched. [/QB]

Erm, would you care to define your terms, and/or adduce some kind of evidence? This feels like handwaving to me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I can be very illiberal in my response to illiberalism.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 In theory, liberal-leaning churches are better at providing pastoral care than at judging people, so they should be very good places for the bereaved to be.
Where do you get that idea from? It's not true IME of 40 years of church experience - the Liberals are far more judgmental once the surface niceness is scratched.

ISTM that the liberal-leaning judgmental attitude you're talking about tends to be aimed at prominent evangelicalism, not at grieving families.

I'm not referring to theological disagreements between ministers, nor awkward culture clashes between the self-selecting people who go to ecumenical meetings, but about regular grassroots work: the clergy (and possibly pastoral teams, etc.) facing needy laypeople.

The CofE's evangelical clergy are sometimes given a bad rap for their attitude towards outsiders who come asking for infant baptisms - or even weddings and funerals - while their more liberal colleagues are depicted as having a more tolerant approach. Indeed, I understand that some vicars (probably the more liberal ones?) actually like interacting with the wider public more than interacting with their congregations, perhaps seeing the former as more reflective of their duty of care to the whole parish.

The demographics of many liberal-leaning congregations may also make a certain kind of pastoral care simply more urgent than in evangelical congregations. My former (Methodist) minister once said that pastoral work was his favourite part of the job. Although he likes youth work, pastoral care in the Methodist Church frequently means ministering to elderly church members (many of whom are the liberalisers of yesterday). There is the usual church conflict between and among clergy and laity, but judging in this kind of pastoral work is certainly not on.

There are different kinds of church liberal, of course, and some are more liberal than others.

[ 23. December 2016, 23:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
In theory, liberal-leaning churches are better at providing pastoral care than at judging people, so they should be very good places for the bereaved to be.
Where do you get that idea from? It's not true IME of 40 years of church experience - the Liberals are far more judgmental once the surface niceness is scratched.

Seems like a false dichotomy squared at least. I don't see liberals being necessarily better for the bereaved. And I don't see how liberals being illiberal with illiberals makes them worse.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

My (clumsy) post was trying to say that the context is perhaps one reason why more liberal or moderate clergy might be particularly pastorally-focused, which obviously includes their dealings with the bereaved.

I believe some studies suggest that more liberal clergy are far more comfortable with pastoral work than with evangelism, which would seem somewhat relevant to the topic of this thread.

However, I wasn't implying that liberal clergy are nicer or can offer more comfort or better theological arguments to families in mourning than clergy of another type.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed not SvitlanaV2. Mourning isn't the time for theological arguments at all. It's the time for mourning. Most people, regardless of how inadequate their theology one way or the other, are naturally good at that.

The worst I've seen was by a village CoE vicar at the funeral of the young guy who died a day after my dad, both obscenely, a couple of days after their plane crash, with the guy's mother there. You could tell the vicar was completely out of his emotional and theological depth, laughing nervously, floridly, saying that 'Johnny is looking down from heaven on us laughing.'. OK for a bunch blokes. Not a mother. Nobody else laughed at that liberally inclusive attempt of pap.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Mainstream clergy seem to believe that a little light humour will reduce the tension at funerals. I remember the minister at my mother's funeral cracking some sort of joke. I didn't laugh, but some people did.

At a funeral a few months later, I made a private comment about my deceased mother and a newly deceased church friend pursuing their hobbies together in heaven. It is theological pap, isn't it? But it's the kind of thing people say.

It's hard for the clergy. We turn to them because we want something 'traditional', yet few of us still have a truly traditional faith. But the clergy aren't trained to provide 'popular religion', so they risk failing if they try to lighten the mood with that.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Sometimes the best thing the church can give to the bereaved is silence and presence. Consider the friends of Job. He appears to have gotten great comfort when they just sat with him, but they made the mistake of finally speaking.

A community of faith does well when it just shows it is there for the bereaved.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sometimes the best thing the church can give to the bereaved is silence and presence. Consider the friends of Job. He appears to have gotten great comfort when they just sat with him, but they made the mistake of finally speaking.

A community of faith does well when it just shows it is there for the bereaved.

This. Though from my own cultural perspective, to silence and presence I would add food.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And drink!

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

I am rather ignorant of what happens in more fundamentalist churches.
Do Elim/Pentecostal 'do' funerals for unbelieving family members? What do they usually say?
I'm not sure either about Catholics though they have purgatory of course and could resort to this.
My own Methodist Church would, like the local C of E go through the usual form without any questions though I've yet to attend the funeral of an out and out rogue!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I can't answer that.

What I do know is that ministers conducting the funerals of "committed Christians" will sometimes (or even often?) preach a Gospel sermon along the lines of "They knew where they were going - but what about you?"

I've been to such services and felt that the minister was exploiting vulnerable and grieving people. However they saw things in terms of speaking bluntly to people who would not normally be "exposed" to the Gospel message, at a time when they might be more "open" to thinking about their ultimate destination.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:

Do Elim/Pentecostal 'do' funerals for unbelieving family members? What do they usually say?

My uncle and mother were raised as Pentecostals, but as they hadn't been members in later life it was considered easier to have them buried by the Methodist church, with which the family also has a connection. But if my mother had died in the country of her birth she'd probably have had a Pentecostal funeral, and been happy about that.

I have been to Pentecostal funerals, though. The pastors do tend to preach at the visitors. But the funerals I go to generally attract mourners who have some cultural or personal familiarity with a certain kind of church life, and I think many of them would feel a bit 'cheated' if a Pentecostal pastor started to sound like a CofE vicar on one of these occasions!

It might be more bewildering or hurtful for an unchurched family in a different cultural environment. I suppose awkwardness could be avoided by holding a private cremation for the family, and then a memorial service for church friends.

[ 29. December 2016, 18:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

On time, as a military chaplain, I was assigned a funeral of an airman who had committed suicide rather than return to a remote tour of duty in the North Sea. When I arrived to do the service, the family asked that their Conservative Baptist pastor be allowed to say a few words. I agreed and at after the reading of Scripture (which I had selected) I allowed him to speak. To say the least, that minister condemned the man to hell for committing suicide. The family was devastated. Then I got up to speak. I spoke on the Quintessence of the New Testament. I did not speak to any details of the man, just to the basic message of the NT. The conservative preacher did not even stay for me to complete my sermon.

A number of weeks later I met the former wife of the airman on another base. She told me how much she had appreciated my words. She said the family quit going to the family church after the funeral.

Point is, just stick to the good news in such situations.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The pastor in question clearly didn't see it as his theological duty to give comfort or 'good news' in this situation. Maybe he fully expected family members to leave the church as a result of what he said.

IMO if the family members didn't already know about the pastor's uncompromising beliefs about hell and suicide then there was clearly a communication failure on his behalf. This isn't the sort of thing you ought to discover about your own pastor on the day of a funeral.

[ 29. December 2016, 20:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Thank God you were there, Gramps. Poor family.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Damnationism is rampant in Christianity and Islam which interweaves with their predestinarianism. The chicken that lays those rotten eggs is ignorant, illiberal conservatism.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
On time, as a military chaplain, I was assigned a funeral of an airman who had committed suicide rather than return to a remote tour of duty in the North Sea. When I arrived to do the service, the family asked that their Conservative Baptist pastor be allowed to say a few words. I agreed and at after the reading of Scripture (which I had selected) I allowed him to speak. To say the least, that minister condemned the man to hell for committing suicide. The family was devastated. Then I got up to speak. I spoke on the Quintessence of the New Testament. I did not speak to any details of the man, just to the basic message of the NT. The conservative preacher did not even stay for me to complete my sermon.

A number of weeks later I met the former wife of the airman on another base. She told me how much she had appreciated my words. She said the family quit going to the family church after the funeral.

Point is, just stick to the good news in such situations.

Having organized 5 funerals as a family member or friend, I learned after the first one to ask the priest or minister ahead of time what they intend to say and not to be afraid to say "that doesn't fit". Not uncommon here. Also so a personal reflection from a priest isn't included. And to talk to the organist about what to play and not to play. (Amazing Grace is never allowed in my family due to bad associations)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
To say the least, that minister condemned the man to hell for committing suicide. The family was devastated.

I have been to services like that. The one that I remember best was a Catholic service for an 18 year-old who had committed suicide. The church was full to overflowing with teen-agers. The most terrible part about it was that although the priests were stern when addressing the congregation, you could hear them joking with each other afterwards in the vestry.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Do churchgoing families really not know what their own denomination teaches about suicide, or about hell?

It must be a sign of secularisation that families might want a religious funeral, even though they have little knowledge of what the denomination in question or its clergy are likely to say about these matters. And these days the other guests are unlikely to know what to expect. Opportunities for upsetting the unwary must be great.

In spite of Martin60's Anglican damnationists, the CofE is mostly expected to provide inoffensive funerals for all-comers in England. However, it seems that ministers in other denominations might be able to pick up more of the demand if they could publicly guarantee not to upset mourners with any unpalatable theology.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Oh it does SvitlanaV2, you just have to turn up on a Sunday to hear the damnationism, it's for the initiated. Despite the fact the clergy always introduce themselves to the theoretical non-Christian who's turned up for the first time who's never there. Even so it's often oblique, coded. The desperate are comforted with ambiguity. That the speaker DIDN'T explicitly say that whacko brother of yours who topped himself without muttering the sinner's prayer ... he dissed JESUS and he chose to burn. Comforted with "we don't know". We don't know what happens in the last breath down the tunnel of light. But it's there. Only a few weeks ago all adulterers were excluded, conservatively faithfully according to the inspired plain meaning of the text. Oh so elegantly, wittily, confessionally, coldly, murderously. The transcript is available.

There is NO trajectory of faith, hope and charity in the vast majority of Christianity.

[ 30. December 2016, 23:18: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, it seems that ministers in other denominations might be able to pick up more of the demand if they could publicly guarantee not to upset mourners with any unpalatable theology.

I do quite a few Swedenborgian funerals. A major part of the service is an explanation of the life after death, treating Swedenborg's descriptions as gospel. I'm not aware that I have upset anyone so far. Of course I may have missed it.

I did a service yesterday, and one of the family members, who had been unaware of their relative's beliefs and knew nothing of Swedenborg, said that the things I said were what he had always believed. He was beyond pleased.

This is such a common response that it happens almost every time. I think that people like having definite things said about the afterlife, especially since they are mostly positive things.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Martin60

Oh, I wouldn't disagree with you. The world is full of strange things, and I'm sure this sort of thing happens in the churches you attend. My point was that the distastefulness of such churches leaves a great gap in the market (especially in the market for funerals) for churches of a different type .

However, due to my Nonconformist, and indeed schismatic roots, the notion that 'the church' offers damnationism and 'the people' have to put up with it frustrates me. It's a very establishment attitude. The reality is, anyone can set up their own congregation, and every Christian constitutes a part of 'the church'. So if 'the people' are crying out for non-damnationist churches, then surely they can have such churches! Unless they really believe the apostolic succession only relates to the CofE, or the RCC, etc., why must they wait until their priestly hierarchy deigns to give them what they want?

We've ended up in a difficult position, IMO due to secularisation. We praise unity and condemn schism, which sounds noble but it means we're fated to attend churches whose teachings we dislike, and can't do much about the situation except complain. The clergy feel no compulsion do to much about it, and it doesn't matter very much if members leave or simply age and die....

Freddy

I don't know if your denomination is at all evangelistic, but you clearly have an excellent selling point here if the response is so positive.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The sheep are scattered yet huddled SvitlanaV2. Pastored by a tatterdemalion bag lady in motley with multiple male personality disorders.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0