Faith-lite?

The Movement for Reform Judaism has just published its new funeral service. It contains material – readings, poems – recommended by, among others, the devotedly atheist Claire Rayner. The purpose is, according to Rabbi Jonathan Magonet, to “allow more options to make it easier for rabbis taking the service to meet the needs of the people who are there.”

It’s all about inclusivity. In addition to secular readings there are prayers for stillborns and suicides.

The rationale for reaching out to non-believers, says Magonet, is to meet the needs of families who want a religious funeral for a non-believer: “The family can be in a bit of a quandary. If you respect the beliefs of the person who is dead, then the liturgical stuff would have been very strange and not asked for. But the family needs to have the comfort of a proper religious funeral.

Says Claire Rayner, “I see it as a progressive move. I think it’s splendid to reach out to atheists who may be in the congregation. It is a mature and grown up way to behave.”

It sounds a bit like the sort of ceremony delivered by civil celebrants with this difference: it’s not an essentially secular affair with religious elements, it’s the other way around. And the same potential criticism applies. If it makes no sense for a civil celebrant to recite prayers they don’t believe, it makes no sense for people of faith to acknowledge a faith position which is the mortal enemy of their own. For as Ms Rayner says, “Belief is a bad habit.”

A funeral ceremony which embraces antithetical beliefs is either incoherent or it’s not. It’s your call.

But can you see atheists being so accommodating? And who’s to say they wouldn’t be right?

Funerals for the faithless

I don’t want to have a cheap pop at atheists. But I do like this – because it makes me chuckle. It’s the way it’s written.


So I just back from my great uncles funeral. I never knew him as a faithful or church going type of guy, but I never knew him as an out of the closet atheist either. I’m sure he was mostly indifferent. At his funeral the pastor declared that my uncle was a man of great faith and is enjoying a seat next to God … blah blah blah. Whatever, man.

While sitting at the funeral I started wondering how an atheist would go about having a non-religious funeral. Religious folk have given up a lot of things through history, but they’ve maintained their stranglehold on the death market. Who would officiate a non-religious funeral? What would they say? If you take out the religous BS out of a funeral you’re left with “Joe was a man, who had people who loved him. They are very sad. He is beyond caring. Sandwiches are downstairs.”

Why do atheists have dead bodies at funerals?

The question Can you have a funeral without a body? is not as useful as the question Why would you have a dead body at a funeral? Yes, yes, you can’t have a wedding or a civil partnership without the happy couple, and you can’t have a baby naming without a baby, so how can you have a funeral without a corpse? But are these events equivalent to a funeral? A corpse is a passive, insensate participant, that’s the difference. Yes, a baby is not an active participant at its naming, but it has to live with the consequences. What difference does a funeral make to a corpse?

That’s the nub of it. And the answer is that for some people a funeral does make a difference to the corpse and for others it does not.

There are, I think, three ways you can view a dead body. Think, now, of your own body when it’s dead. Which of the following will apply?

1. My body and my soul belong together (I am not dead, I am sleeping).

2. I had a body. Now I am a spirit (my body is old clothes).

3. I had a body. That was me (ditto).

Each describes a specific bodily status. Number 1 is explicitly Christian; you are sort of sleeping, awaiting resurrection in your earthly body. Number 2 is broadly spiritual. Number 3 is explicitly atheist. If you are a number 1 or 2 you are going somewhere; you are in a state of transition, the difference being that 2s leave their bodies behind. If you are a number 3 everything stopped when you took your last breath. Every minute that passes thereafter leaves you further and further in the past.

In order to mark the transition of a dead body number 1 it makes good sense to demonstrate its continuing dynamic by physically bringing it to a departure ceremony and wish it safe journey.

For a number 2 body I’d have thought a departure ceremony optional. John Lennon was a 2. Yoko One had his body burnt unattended and held a memorial ceremony instead, to take place everywhere and anywhere. “Pray for his soul from wherever you are,” she said. But inasmuch as the flight of a soul is about movement and transition and endurance, a farewell ceremony for the body is an appropriately symbolic alternative.

As for the number 3s, I’m not sure that they’ve thought this through. Ask an atheist if he or she wants to be cremated or buried. Chances are you’ll be made aware of a strong preference, arrived at in the consideration of a strong revulsion for one or the other. Wrong answer. The right answer is that it doesn’t matter a bit.

So, for number 3s, atheists, to bring a dead body, outworn carcass and so much deadweight, to a farewell ceremony would seem to be illogical and unnecessary. For atheists, surely, it’s got to be a memorial service every time?

My argument is not nearly as cut and dried as it seems.

Why do atheists believe in heaven?

 

All faith groups have sects to be ashamed of, the ones who want to string up gays, stone women taken in adultery, that sort of nonsense. Let’s not get into one of those complacent debates about how it could be that faiths based in love can spawn such hatred. We might, though, consider drawing the line against outlawing fundamentalists by using anti-terrorism laws. Did you see that the edict issued by free speech-loving Mr Johnson against Islam4UK extends to a proscription against insignia and clothes. Clothes??!! Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nutter.

Rectitude breeds contempt, that we can say. But in one faith group it breeds anger to an intriguing degree. Atheists. The Dawkinistas.Terrifically cross lot. No one is safe from their yelling, even old maids cycling to church through the morning mist. Is there something essentially silly about preaching a negative, getting all hot under the collar about Nothing? I don’t have a view on this myself. I am a bystander, merely; a quizzical commentator.

Anyone who believes anything has problems with the doctrine. Those who don’t are the ones to watch. How many atheists fervently believe in Nothing? Not that many when the chips come down to it. When you shine the interrogator’s light into the eyes of their faith you’ll more often than not elicit this anomaly: “I don’t believe in god…but I do believe in heaven.” This is the point when my friend Richard, an exuberantly faulty Catholic, quotes Chesterton: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.”

This is a problem for humanist funeral celebrants – an acute embarrassment. Members of their flock are always wanting to sing from a hymn sheet and lift their eyes to a hereafter. It’s not so much an aspiration as a supposition. Belief in a heaven of some sort seems to be ineradicable from the mind of humankind, a heaven which needs no whitebeard concierge.

Lifestyle gurus are always telling us to live in the present. Ever tried it? People with a death sentence can do it, and some meditators, perhaps, but most of us are too busy using the present to assess our past or plan our future. In our heads, the future is where most of us do most of our living. We defer a lot of pleasure in the sure and certain hope of that future. This is why we have pension plans. And this is why the death of a young person is so much more painful to us than the death of a very old person: the young person has been denied so much more future.

Even a completely clapped out body cannot rid most of us of the habit of living in the future. Sure, we can at this stage easily see that an earthly future is out of the question. That’s when our minds leap lightly into the hereafter. And that’s why atheists believe in heaven.

Cross

Just once in a while things, if they are little enough and come in a cluster, can subvert the sunny disposition for which I am justly famous.

This morning I was at Sutton Coldfield crematorium, my first time. I had already got the measure of the place. A telephone enquiry yesterday about whether there was a funeral immediately after ‘mine’ yielded the most remorseless lecture I have ever had from a public servant about the vital importance of keeping within my appointed limits: 20 minutes. Twenty minutes! Once there, I went to strike up an acquaintance with the organist-CD chap. The service before ‘mine’ was over and the mourners were departing to the strains of—you guessed it. “Good heavens,” I said to him, “My Way. What a most unusual song to play at a funeral.” He looked at me with weary earnestness and said it was the song he played most. I was in an irony-free zone. I got ‘my’ funeral off at the stroke of twelve noon. It was always going to be a close run thing, cramming a goodbye to a tremendously nice and loved man into twenty minutes. In the event, we had to do without the interlude for silent reflection, hurry the farewell a little, wrap it up just in time. Only when it was over did I discover that the next funeral was a ‘committal only’—the dead chap had already had his funeral in church and had just come to be burnt. His lot were in and out in five minutes. We could have had five/ten mins of their half hour, no problem, they never would have minded. But when the needs of the institution are greater than those of its users, give and take go out of the window. Still, at least the funeral director was nice to me. “Thank you so much for taking this for us,” she said. I didn’t have the energy to point out that the relicts had phoned and booked me direct, that I was working for them, not her. I just left.

And came home to an article in the Guardian of such pusillanimity that it actually got under my skin. It’s by a creep called Phil Hall, who describes himself as a “socialist, a college/university lecturer and teacher trainer based in west London. He’s African by birth, English by culture and in love with all things Mexican.” In other words, a man who’s completely up himself. This is what he says:

There are many contrasting approaches to the arrangement of funerals, from the religious to the secular. But after five deaths and four funerals over the last two years, it seems to me that the humanist way of death is the most salutary.

Wonder what happened to the fifth funeral.

This is because it accepts one simple truth. Human life is constructed like a story. It has a beginning, high points, low points and then ends – definitively.

The humanist way of death recognises the fact that you will die and that when you do, that will be the story of you. From the viewpoint of our human, third person narrative, isn’t the idea of heaven a little irritating? A life, like a good book, should never end in: ” … to be continued.” Life only really makes sense as biography.

In contrast, religious funerals, where a stranger usually officiates and witters on about heaven, often fail to commemorate a life well lived properly. Religious funerals can be a whimpering anti-climax.

You can see where this is going. It’s just lazy, beastly dawkinism. But an existential event as a narrative event? I hadn’t thought of that. Now that’s really stupid. He goes on (can you take it?):

When Uncle Heini died this month at the age of 99 there was a lot to celebrate about his life. He survived two world wars honourably. Heini was flamboyant and kind. In his 80s he was still travelling from Machu Picchu to China. He even went climbing in the Himalayas at the age of 85. Heini was a well-known actor and a famous clown in the Munich theatre.

But his funeral was completely out of keeping with this, and I blame religion and its obsession with the afterlife for that. It put a damper on an occasion that should have been far more representative of who he really was. The crematorium orchestra played Albinoni and Bach, an actress read out a poem, the theatre administrator gave a thoughtful speech, and then a Lutheran pastor stood up with a wan smile and gave her homily. It was full of religious platitudes. In half an hour Heini’s divine reispass was stamped, his celestial ticket clipped. And that was it; curtains.

Phil, you pillock, if you don’t want a Lutheran pastor or any other kind of pastor to talk resurrection at your funeral, DON’T BLOODY INVITE ONE. (Love the crem orchestra, though. In your dreams.)

A little bit of believe and let believe would go a long way from our atheist brothers and sisters. The Zero Militant is becoming tiresome.

Not for the first time (this is unrelated) I wonder why it is that atheists bring their dead people to a funeral. Come on, chaps, think it through: it’s nobbut carcass!

Read Phil’s drivel here.