Cremation and Christian liberty
Bunnie Diehl currently has two seperate discussions going about the same book: Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt's Ashes to Ashes or Dust to Dust?, a book which argues that it is wrong for Christians to be cremated.
Traditionally, Dr. Schmidt's position has indeed been the Christian one, for a very good, practical reason: it's pretty generally been scoffers at the idea of the resurrection of the body who have been cremated. It might be well to begin by saying, first, that to the extent that such remains the case, the argument against the practice remains valid.
The problem is that with the exception of a relatively small number of traditionally-minded Christians, nobody even thinks of cremation in terms of its implications for the general resurrection any more.
Now, the argument can still be legitimately made that the practice should be shunned lest offense be given to those few remaining Christians for whom the matter is even an issue. The argument can even be made that it's an unwise practice that can be misconstrued and be seen as implying a rejection of the resurrection of the body. The trouble is that Dr. Schmidt goes beyond this, and tries to make a case that cremation is itself a sin.
Dr. Schmidt himself writes in Bunnie's comments that he is not condemning those who choose cremation, or to make those who consent to it feel guilty. This comment, of course, is disingenuous; to label something as a sin and to speak the need for "repentence" for that sin is both a condemnation of the people who engage in it, and a suggestion that they are, indeed, guilty! What one might bear with for the sake of Christian charity-as in 1 Corinthians 8:9- takes on an entirely different significance when an attempt is made actually to bind consciences without clear and specific grounds for doing so from Scripture. In such a case, the logic of Article XV of the Augsburg Confession and Article X of the Formula of Concord certainly seems to suggest that another issue- that of Christian liberty- supervenes, and the counsel of Galatians 5:1 becomes the operative word.
Dr. Schmidt's arguments (for which see Bunnie's blog) are interesting, and as a case for a opting against cremation as a matter of personal judgment are perfectly legitimate. As grounds for binding consciences, though, they seem to me to fall far short of what is required. He cites only one passage- Amos 2:1-2- which even comes close to providing a divine prohibition against cremation, and the passage gives such little context that I find it hard to see it as the equivalent of such an across-the-board prohibition.
There are lots of reasons for being cremated. My mother-in-law and father-in-law donated their bodies to science; because their organs and body parts likely ended up in several different states, their "graves" actually contain the ashes of several different people besides theirs. Keeping track of body parts is expensive and time-consuming, and medical science frankly has better uses of its resources. Is it "putting the Lord to the test," as Dr. Schmidt suggests, to reason that God will in no way be inconvenienced by this fact when Delbert and Claudia are resurrected? I don't think so.
I don't plan to be cremated. I see no reason to be- and Dr. Schmidt's arguments are weighty enough that I would require a substantial reason to act otherwise than he suggests. But I believe him to be in the wrong when he suggests that to do otherwise is to sin. And while it is unlikely that if I were cremated very many people would take it as a commentary on my attitude toward the resurrection, it seems to me that a much more immediate matter of confession is involved here.
One commenter at Bunnie's blog suggested that "Christian liberty" is the cry of Christians who are increasingly involved in destroying all obvious differences between believers and non-believers. I would argue that, to the contrary, Christian liberty is the one mark of genuine, biblical faith which is the most lacking in American Evangelicalism, which is so obsessed with the unbiblical question "What Would Jesus Do?" and with the living of lives characterized by guilt-ridden conformity to almost entirely human prescriptions of conduct like The Purpose-Driven Life that the joyful, spontaneous life of gratitude overflowing in love which is the basis of true Christian obedience is awfully hard to find.
""WWJD" is a question which was around long before that Christian Reformed youth group thought the slogan up. Thomas a' Kempis, for one, made quite a name for himself by asking it. Lutheran spirituality has generally rejected the imitation of Christ as a focus for the Law's function as Guide, however. We are not Christ; the question is not what Jesus did- except as regards his active and passive obedience for our salvation- and then what we ourselves are commanded to do.
Or not to do.
Christian liberty is an article of faith under attack today in precisely the sense of which Article X of the Formula speaks when it says that in matters of confession and offense nothing is an adiaphoron. What might well be conceded as an exercise in bearing with the weakness of others becomes a matter of confession when an attempt is made to say "ya gotta" where God has not said so.
And He hasn't with regard to cremation. If Amos 2 were meant as such a prohibition, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that its ultimate Author would have spelled out the reason why He was displeased that Moab had "burned the bones of the kings of Edom." If God had intended to categorically forbid us to practice cremation, I don't think it would be "putting the Lord to the test" to expect that He would have done so clearly and unambiguously, without leaving us to wonder whether His displeasure at Moab had to do with the act per se, with the pagan cultic practices involved, or with some other specific circumstance.
Where the Bible does not clearly and unambiguously forbid something, we shouldn't either. That doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it; we just dare not claim to act as God's spokesmen in the matter. And once again, despite his disclaimed, Dr. Schmidt does indeed say "thus saith the Lord" about cremation. That is something which ought not to be said unless the Lord has spoken clearly and without any room for doubt.
The best advice for everyone in this matter remains the counsel of Romans 14:13. But Matthew 15:8-9 needs to be taken into account, too- as does Galatians 5:1.
As I said earlier, I don't plan on being cremated- and certainly not as a testimony to my Christian freedom! And it goes without saying that the scruples and qualms of whatever Christians might be offended by the practice need to be respected. But I question how many of those there are these days- and whether the world in general sees either burial or cremation as a commentary on the resurrection of the dead.
There's a big difference between having regard for the consciences of others, and letting them legislate in God's Name. Distinguishing between the two is not something we have a choice about. On that much, we do have a definite word from God.
Traditionally, Dr. Schmidt's position has indeed been the Christian one, for a very good, practical reason: it's pretty generally been scoffers at the idea of the resurrection of the body who have been cremated. It might be well to begin by saying, first, that to the extent that such remains the case, the argument against the practice remains valid.
The problem is that with the exception of a relatively small number of traditionally-minded Christians, nobody even thinks of cremation in terms of its implications for the general resurrection any more.
Now, the argument can still be legitimately made that the practice should be shunned lest offense be given to those few remaining Christians for whom the matter is even an issue. The argument can even be made that it's an unwise practice that can be misconstrued and be seen as implying a rejection of the resurrection of the body. The trouble is that Dr. Schmidt goes beyond this, and tries to make a case that cremation is itself a sin.
Dr. Schmidt himself writes in Bunnie's comments that he is not condemning those who choose cremation, or to make those who consent to it feel guilty. This comment, of course, is disingenuous; to label something as a sin and to speak the need for "repentence" for that sin is both a condemnation of the people who engage in it, and a suggestion that they are, indeed, guilty! What one might bear with for the sake of Christian charity-as in 1 Corinthians 8:9- takes on an entirely different significance when an attempt is made actually to bind consciences without clear and specific grounds for doing so from Scripture. In such a case, the logic of Article XV of the Augsburg Confession and Article X of the Formula of Concord certainly seems to suggest that another issue- that of Christian liberty- supervenes, and the counsel of Galatians 5:1 becomes the operative word.
Dr. Schmidt's arguments (for which see Bunnie's blog) are interesting, and as a case for a opting against cremation as a matter of personal judgment are perfectly legitimate. As grounds for binding consciences, though, they seem to me to fall far short of what is required. He cites only one passage- Amos 2:1-2- which even comes close to providing a divine prohibition against cremation, and the passage gives such little context that I find it hard to see it as the equivalent of such an across-the-board prohibition.
There are lots of reasons for being cremated. My mother-in-law and father-in-law donated their bodies to science; because their organs and body parts likely ended up in several different states, their "graves" actually contain the ashes of several different people besides theirs. Keeping track of body parts is expensive and time-consuming, and medical science frankly has better uses of its resources. Is it "putting the Lord to the test," as Dr. Schmidt suggests, to reason that God will in no way be inconvenienced by this fact when Delbert and Claudia are resurrected? I don't think so.
I don't plan to be cremated. I see no reason to be- and Dr. Schmidt's arguments are weighty enough that I would require a substantial reason to act otherwise than he suggests. But I believe him to be in the wrong when he suggests that to do otherwise is to sin. And while it is unlikely that if I were cremated very many people would take it as a commentary on my attitude toward the resurrection, it seems to me that a much more immediate matter of confession is involved here.
One commenter at Bunnie's blog suggested that "Christian liberty" is the cry of Christians who are increasingly involved in destroying all obvious differences between believers and non-believers. I would argue that, to the contrary, Christian liberty is the one mark of genuine, biblical faith which is the most lacking in American Evangelicalism, which is so obsessed with the unbiblical question "What Would Jesus Do?" and with the living of lives characterized by guilt-ridden conformity to almost entirely human prescriptions of conduct like The Purpose-Driven Life that the joyful, spontaneous life of gratitude overflowing in love which is the basis of true Christian obedience is awfully hard to find.
""WWJD" is a question which was around long before that Christian Reformed youth group thought the slogan up. Thomas a' Kempis, for one, made quite a name for himself by asking it. Lutheran spirituality has generally rejected the imitation of Christ as a focus for the Law's function as Guide, however. We are not Christ; the question is not what Jesus did- except as regards his active and passive obedience for our salvation- and then what we ourselves are commanded to do.
Or not to do.
Christian liberty is an article of faith under attack today in precisely the sense of which Article X of the Formula speaks when it says that in matters of confession and offense nothing is an adiaphoron. What might well be conceded as an exercise in bearing with the weakness of others becomes a matter of confession when an attempt is made to say "ya gotta" where God has not said so.
And He hasn't with regard to cremation. If Amos 2 were meant as such a prohibition, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that its ultimate Author would have spelled out the reason why He was displeased that Moab had "burned the bones of the kings of Edom." If God had intended to categorically forbid us to practice cremation, I don't think it would be "putting the Lord to the test" to expect that He would have done so clearly and unambiguously, without leaving us to wonder whether His displeasure at Moab had to do with the act per se, with the pagan cultic practices involved, or with some other specific circumstance.
Where the Bible does not clearly and unambiguously forbid something, we shouldn't either. That doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it; we just dare not claim to act as God's spokesmen in the matter. And once again, despite his disclaimed, Dr. Schmidt does indeed say "thus saith the Lord" about cremation. That is something which ought not to be said unless the Lord has spoken clearly and without any room for doubt.
The best advice for everyone in this matter remains the counsel of Romans 14:13. But Matthew 15:8-9 needs to be taken into account, too- as does Galatians 5:1.
As I said earlier, I don't plan on being cremated- and certainly not as a testimony to my Christian freedom! And it goes without saying that the scruples and qualms of whatever Christians might be offended by the practice need to be respected. But I question how many of those there are these days- and whether the world in general sees either burial or cremation as a commentary on the resurrection of the dead.
There's a big difference between having regard for the consciences of others, and letting them legislate in God's Name. Distinguishing between the two is not something we have a choice about. On that much, we do have a definite word from God.
Comments