Consider the words of “forestboar” (Rev. Lincoln Winter):
Embalming has its origins in customs every bit as pagan as cremation. Yet for some reason, these customs have been adopted almost uncritically by Christians, while cremation is still seen as a problem.
Is embalming bad? I suppose the one advantage is that, if you aren’t dead before, you are certainly dead after – no chance of being buried alive. But the idea of draining the blood, filling the body with chemicals designed to interfere with the word of God itself (to dust you shall return), along with viewing a dead body made up to look alive – you don’t want to know the things they have to sew in place for that to happen – is all quite goulish when you think about it.
Which is, of course, why the Christian tradition is that the casket be closed. No one really needs to see the dead body “for closure”. (Whatever that means) That’s pop-psychobabble foolishness. We may as well say it is to help our self-esteem. It makes just as much sense and has just as much scientific evidence behind it.
So, should the church fight against the current funeral customs and say, “go naturally – buried without embalming or exhibitionism.” The embalming only serves to protect the body for a viewing, which is not a Christian rite in any way. how much money could be saved, how much false doctrine avoided is we let the people see death as it is.
All of this talk of death reminds me of the Woody Allen quote : I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work… I want to achieve it through not dying.
Surely our Porcher friends would agree: Go naturally, without embalming or exhibitionism. Nobody needs to see that dead body for “closure.” So maybe Carl is right in the thread: pine box, wooden marker, unpreserved death body, dignified and pious funeral, quick burial, time for family, friends, and memories.
On the creepometer, I really do think embalming might score higher than cremation.
And that Woody Allen quote is always funny and in its strange way a piece of Christian psychology, if properly understood.
January 15th, 2011 | 10:47 am
I haven’t thought much about this, but I can say that “closure” is not the only argument for open casket…there’s also an unspoken one about distrust. When active political or business leaders die, or persons in families divided by internal discord, it’s a polite way of letting those who might be suspicious see with their own that the deceased really is so. But beyond those situations…it’s hard to see that it’s needed. It’s kind of a “Cartesian courtesy” extended to all, but one that in my view is actually insulting to all concerned. “So that you don’t need to talk with those closest to the deceased nor any others involved in confirming death and putting the corpse in the casket, nor need to trust their word, we will provide for you to see with your own eyes.”
My shameless guess: it sounds like a custom that got going in the West via noble classes thinking too much (albeit perhaps understandably) of “Machiavellian” possibilities. It was initially dressed up with reliquary and antiquarian associations (oh, the Egyptians did this, as you surely know sir from your Herodotus), and eventually popularized with Romantic/Victorian sentiments and finally justified with pyschological ones. Any funereal experts out there care to comment?
January 15th, 2011 | 11:20 am
I’m in the ‘go natural’ school.
However, it may prove offensively odoriferous if we must wait an additional day or two for close friends or family to fly in from California or France.
I certainly agree that the corpse need not be present as we celebrate/remember his/her life. One would think a death certificate and a picture on the table should suffice.
However, you are stepping on some big toes and one would think that the Nat’l Morticians Union/Association may have a different perspective, considering the current economy.
January 15th, 2011 | 12:46 pm
Amen.
The one ‘plus’ for embalming in our day and age is that families are so far seperated that funerals are often delayed for as much as a week. But certainly refrigeration and a body bag would suffice.
January 16th, 2011 | 1:19 pm
I don’t want to let the opportunity pass to jump on the anti-embalming bandwagon. I welcome the voice of any church that might encourage believers to “go natural” in this domain. I see the point about the creepiness of embalming, but mainly I’m convinced that our whole embalming culture was a huge marketing coup by the morticians. Everybody has got to make a living, but death has just got way too expensive. Yes indeed, if the family is far away, why not freezers? Aren’t there laws in most states the restrict that amount of time between death and burial without embalming? I propose lobbying state legislatures and at the same time raising capital for a dignified corpse-freezer business.
January 16th, 2011 | 4:12 pm
I can’t give an argument against the freezer, I guess. But any sentence that begins “Grandma’s in the freezer,” I’m afraid, would cause me to break out in undignified laughter.
January 16th, 2011 | 7:10 pm
Peter, I’d rather hold my laughter than my nose breath. Snow is right that smells matter.
January 17th, 2011 | 10:43 am
OK, I naively trusted that if I specified “dignified” corpse-freezer business, I might avoid the ridicule. Ah well. Anyway Peter, it’s a little late in the day for us to be talking “Grandma” in this context, no?
January 17th, 2011 | 1:10 pm
Good point about Grandma (for/from a Grandpa). I’m, okay myself with being frozen–and not for Ted Williams reasons.
January 17th, 2011 | 7:57 pm
I always thought embalming was required by law. Am I wrong?
January 17th, 2011 | 10:15 pm
Peter Lawler: “I can’t give an argument against the freezer, I guess. But any sentence that begins “Grandma’s in the freezer,” I’m afraid, would cause me to break out in undignified laughter.”
ROFL …that made my day!
January 18th, 2011 | 4:38 am
The practice of cremation I thought arose as a form of “last stand rebellionism” against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body: let God put that back together! No such implications with embalming.
Is the body not significant? What of relics; are they icky and ghoulish too?
On the subject of burial in general, I learned a vast amount from a PBS documentary entitled “A Family Undertaking” http://www.pbs.org/pov/afamilyundertaking/
January 18th, 2011 | 10:20 am
Embalming is rarely required, but it is a sign of the effectiveness of the funeral industry that so many people think it is. Laws vary state to state, but generally refrigeration (not freezing) is an acceptable alternative. Unfortunately, far too few funeral homes have refrigeration. Why?
January 19th, 2011 | 10:22 am
4 years ago I lead a family-directed funeral for my mother. We did not use a licensed funeral director or mortuary. Mom died in Texas, and we made our own “hope chest” in which we placed her body after we washed and anointed it, and using our pick-up truck we took her body in the hope chest to Minnesota. This natural method cost less that $200, plus our travel to Minnesota (which we would have done anyway) plus the cost of the cemetery and pastor and church which we wanted anyway too.) We could express our Christian rituals and family times on our time-line, with no funeral director marshalling us along. It was an extremely meaningful way to give our final gifts in death care, and a way to give memorial gifts rather than wasting the $10,000 it would have cost if I had used the funeral homes at that time. You can reach me or get more information from the national Funeral consumers Alliance, at http://www.funerals.org. Rodger
January 31st, 2011 | 1:35 pm
“the Christian tradition is that the casket be closed.”
What is this guy talking about? The Byzantine funeral rites require that the casket be opened at various points. We treat the body of a departed Christian with reverence. It is the casket that is an innovation for Christians.
Just Google the funeral for John Paul II and look at the images.
As far as embalming the body vs.refrigeration – that’s another matter.
April 23rd, 2011 | 9:07 am
I’m all for saving my family the additional grief of funeral costs, and the freezing thing is understandable, but I see myself as a funeral pyre kinda guy. burning the body isn’t expensive, to my knowledge, and can be done after refrigeration if everyone needs time to get into town. What is the religious and symbolic association of that? is it legal? and who’s with me?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact