Strange that you should post Anne Richards’ piece today, as I found it after taking what remained of my late family’s papers and mementoes to the local council tip. To say that I found it a profoundly saddening act is no exaggeration. The last act, the final farewell to six or eight lives, leaving me emotionally upset by what I can only feel as an act of betrayal. The point is, someone had to do it. I’m the last of their line; I either do it myself or leave it for my widow and children, for whom it is just… Read more »
Humanist/secular funerals work within their own terms of reference. For many years I did not believe in afterlife. The emphasis in the Humanist funerals I attended at that time on remembering the departed resonated with me.
I can understand what you mean, Simon; essentially they’re a resume of someone’s life, which is all to the good. It gives some value and meaning to the life which is being celebrated.
Speaking on a personal level here, its hard to convey exactly how I felt after the services; the sense of finality with nothing to look forward to is what depressed me.
John, I’m saddened and angered to hear you were told: ‘if you’re sure your mother was a believer, why are you grieving now she’s dead?’ If pastors who believe such nonsense studied the OT more and prayed the psalms day by day they might find their humanity. The 13th century Lay Folks’ Office for the Dead opened by assaulting God’s ears with a blast of fierce laments from Job: ‘Why didst thou bring me forth from the womb? Would that I had died before any eye had seen me, carried from the womb to the grave. Let me alone that… Read more »
Thank you – there is a powerful sense of reality about that quotation. What always hits me about death is that the relatives have to deal with the necessary practicalities at a time when they are emotionally shattered, and at their lowest point, least able to cope with the demands upon them. The natural grieving process has to be set aside to deal with the immediate issues, and it doesn’t just go away. It remains with us for a very long time, and no matter how deep our faith is, how certain we may be of heaven, we’re bound to… Read more »
In a society loathe to name it, the Church has a prophetic voice to speak about death. Yet the bereaved must first be given space to sit with grief. Even Job’s comforters “sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great.”
given that there is no consensus in “the Church” about what happens after death, and whether it happens differently to “Christians” the prophetic voice” could be a tad confused. But then that’s nothing new, either!
Belief in the immortality of the soul has more takers these days than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. An outworking of this is the growing practice of cremating the body privately before the funeral, which then goes ahead without even an urn. A funeral minus its main character was always going to be an easier sell to Protestant sensibilities, but a RC priest tells me that he often gets such requests, which he gets around by branding as ‘Memorial Services’.
Thank you, Janet. Like you, I’ve managed to move away from my original view, but the very rational side of it keeps resurfacing every now and again.
Shaking that literalism – and its attendant legalism – is very very difficult, particularly if you’re not that secure emotionally to begin with. Thank God indeed for the gift of wonder.
At present I’m reading Eugene Peterson’s book “Reversed Thunder” about Revelation and ‘sanctified imagination’. Some of his comments are very pertinent in the context of this thread too – if only I had sufficient gift of imagination to see it like that,
I know this is subjective – but when sitting with the dying and conducting funerals, I have more often than not been overwhelmed with a sense of God’s love for that person, and of peace. This has happened when I have no reason to think that they were a person of faith. I think the do have a few clues in scripture, e.g. Jesus’ assurance that the dying thief would be with him in paradise; and a hint in Rom 1 that people will be judged by how they responded to what they knew of God. And for all we… Read more »
Isn’t it time we moved on from the idea of Christians going to heaven? It plays no part in Anglican liturgy and is little more than an escapist fantasy, which many evangelicals believe and teach based on diddly squat.
What I believe is that the same thing happens to us all, when we die. I expect to be where I was before I was born. But I don’t find that in the least depressing or worrying – indeed a great deal less problematical than the “traditional” Christian belief which led people to want lots of prayers and special petitions for their souls. But I also believe that the rituals which follow death are of profound importance (to the living) and that it’s good to think about them and plan for them.
Thank you, Pam. I asked Adrian because I was hoping he would expand on his statement above.
In my view, the New Testament offers us ample encouragement to believe not only that there is an afterlife, but that it will be better than this life. As Paul said, if this is not true Christians are of all people most to be pitied.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of the NT is Jesus’ assurance that he knew heaven exists and what it is like, because he’d been there. I’m not aware of anyone else making that sort of claim in a credible way. I believe Jesus but I also wonder if St Paul got it entirely right about Christians being most to be pitied if heaven doesn’t exist. A believer approaching the end of their life may be looking forward to meeting the Lord. But if there is nothing beyond this world, then no sign is going to appear from the nonexistent afterlife… Read more »
I have absolutely no idea what form the afterlife is going to take. (There are two possible destinations according to tradition, one of which is not particularly desirable.) All any of us can say is that if, as Jesus promised, we are with him ‘in his father’s house’ it will be a very interesting place indeed.
(Rev W Awdry also had an interesting take on this question, likening our faith journey to a railway trip – ‘very good ways to get to excellent places’.)
As a lay minister who often conducts ‘crem only’ funerals, I think it so important that we continue to offer these rather just doing them for our faithful. The residual Christendom beliefs still need nourishing, the ‘smoking flax’ faith needs to be nurtured. We can present the Christian hope (I’m an Anglo-Catholic) to those who may not have ever heard it presented. One of my funerals was attended by over 300 people. How many churches have the opportunity to share the faith with so many unchurched people? I always include a section about the Chrisian faith and what we believe… Read more »
Jo B
20 days ago
Having had colleagues accused of abuse (physical rather than sexual) in the past I’m very aware of the sort of events Stephen Parsons highlights. I fear, however, that even with perfect processes and the wisdom of Solomon there will still be times when it will be impossible to tell the true but unprovable accusation from the false one. I do not envy anyone charged with dividing the two, and getting it wrong in either direction can have devastating consequences. We can and should strive for the best processes and standards possible, but we also have to have humility to realise… Read more »
The excruciatingly awful account in the BBC today of the handling of abuse in Leicester Diocese demonstrates there is a long, long way to go to achieve even marginally acceptable processes in the CofE. It’s becoming clear why the LLF process is now without leadership. Bishops MUST be properly accountable and face the consequences of their actions.
The court case was over a year ago, but it has taken a BBC investigation to bring the incident to light . If you read the statement on the diocesan website, it sounds like a different incident , and due process (whatever that is in Leicester) was followed . At the time of the ICSA report concerns were raised about the autonomy of Bishops in their fiefdoms-so what has changed?
The Victim of the stalking by the lay minister was accused by the bishop of witchcraft, he says. The Diocese of Leicester issued a statement, on Sunday saying the Bishop of Leicester never said that. But what is the Diocese of Leiceter? Who authorised this statement? It seems to be a case that either the bishop or the victim is not telling the truth and “the diocese” has issued an urgent statement giving the bishop’s version as if it were certainly true.
Who bites the dust? The person who has suffered ( and still is) as far as I can see is the victim of the stalking. There is an article in the Church Times today wringing its hands over employment issues and the problem of dealing with those with a bishop’s licence. If ever a case illustrates the need for safeguarding to be removed from the power of the bishop this is yet another one. The stalker ticked all the boxes Wiki says are special interests of the Bishop of Leicester in terms of evangelism and representing the COf E’s missing… Read more »
It’s interesting you point out the ‘I could have done better’ comment. I’m picking up this as the new episcopal mantra replacing ‘lessons have been learned’ as meaningless drivel trotted out to try to avoid any real consequences for seriously botched actions. The Archbishop of Wales’ first attempt at a post-Bangor-explosion statement said something very similar, as have several of ++York’s half hearted mea culpa utterances since ++Canterbury went. You’re absolutely right – the assumption goes something like ‘well I’ve said sorry so we can just put it all behind us and get on with business as usual now, can’t… Read more »
Indeed the person who has suffered most is the victim of the stalker, but not solely becuase of the stalker. As is so often the case it is the church’s response that causes more suffering for the victim. The diocese had an investigation which concluded in the victim’s favour, but the bishop then overruled this based on his personal knowledge of the stalker as someone who wouldn’t do that sort of thing. He then accused the victim of witchcraft, (so the victim says).. When the BBC reported on this on Sunday the “Diocese” put out a statement stating as if… Read more »
“either the bishop or the victim is not telling the truth’. I just do not think it is that simple. I have known times of painful misunderstanding in my pastoral ministry when trying to work through a painful and vulnerable context with someone, I was heard to say something I did not say, still less believed. They truthfully thought I had said it. I truthfully could say I had not. It happens. Add into the mix that the story as we are hearing it is via a journalist in a national newspaper and you have another reason for being cautious.
This case is one in a very long line in which bishops have interfered with investigations/ overruled recommendations. Moreover at his meeting with the complainant the bishop had a confused aim & thus went off on a tangent discussing issues with the complainant’s suitability for ordination. He also made it a one-on-one meeting, thus ensuring that proper records would not be kept. On that note the CofE reputation is now so low that the complainant was extremely unwise not to insist on bringing a friend/ legal advisor with him, and if HR had really been supporting him they would have… Read more »
David, as you say one of the issues in any situation such as you describe is what each party hears as well as what each party says…. And I’m sure you will have had endless training on communication and checking out what the other party has actually heard – and this does not always fully work though it can help as we (those of us in caring professions) get better at it. Yes, false accusations occasionally are made too and can be terribly damaging as the blog says. All that said, I’m afraid the situation reported over the weekend even… Read more »
To be clear. I am grateful for investigative journalism. And I want those who should be held accountable to be held accountable. But I have worked at various organisational levels in the Church of England for some years and I have honestly yet to read a journalist’s account of a story or issue of which I have some firsthand knowledge that is wholly factually accurate and that does not avoid a degree of slant or prejudice in the interpretation of the facts. This is often not intentional. It is simply not a world of faith they have firsthand knowledge of.… Read more »
Let me reassure you – I can be as prejudiced as any. But I have not taken sides here have I? I have actually cautioned against doing so too readily, or assuming the accuracy of the sources I am forming my opinions from. That’s all.
In the early 1990s Prime Minister Mr Major was accused by Mr Gerry Adams of telling lies. Ordinarily it might be expected most people would automatically accept the word of the prime minister. Remarkably , almost everybody believed Mr Adams, and he was soon proved right. A few years ago the word of a bishop might have been uncritically accepted over that of a complainant. Nowadays the boot is on the other foot. The Church has passed it’s Adams-Major watershed. Nobody believes anything a bishop says. Undoubtedly there will be occasions a bishop may actually tell the truth,but a great… Read more »
“Nobody believes anything a bishop says ..there will be occasions a bishop may actually tell the truth.” Sorry, but such wild, frankly insulting, overstatements make informed discussion impossible.
I have failed to make myself clear. Nobody is an exaggeration of course but I was trying to express what I have observed to be a now very deep public perception. When people hear two versions of a story and have no means of knowing the truth they tend to believe the person perceived as having greater credibility. It is that perception of credibility, in the public mind, that has shifted. The tragedy of which I spoke is this sea change in the public mind. It is not, I think, objectively, only an occasional thing for a bishop to speak… Read more »
You were, if I may say so, approaching the question analytically which I admire.
In relation to the question of whether to believe bishops or complainants, you or someone with your approach, might already have concluded the bishop’s duty was to keep the Church squeaky clean and the complaiant exposing the underbelly.
Strange that you should post Anne Richards’ piece today, as I found it after taking what remained of my late family’s papers and mementoes to the local council tip. To say that I found it a profoundly saddening act is no exaggeration. The last act, the final farewell to six or eight lives, leaving me emotionally upset by what I can only feel as an act of betrayal. The point is, someone had to do it. I’m the last of their line; I either do it myself or leave it for my widow and children, for whom it is just… Read more »
Humanist/secular funerals work within their own terms of reference. For many years I did not believe in afterlife. The emphasis in the Humanist funerals I attended at that time on remembering the departed resonated with me.
I can understand what you mean, Simon; essentially they’re a resume of someone’s life, which is all to the good. It gives some value and meaning to the life which is being celebrated.
Speaking on a personal level here, its hard to convey exactly how I felt after the services; the sense of finality with nothing to look forward to is what depressed me.
John, I’m saddened and angered to hear you were told: ‘if you’re sure your mother was a believer, why are you grieving now she’s dead?’ If pastors who believe such nonsense studied the OT more and prayed the psalms day by day they might find their humanity. The 13th century Lay Folks’ Office for the Dead opened by assaulting God’s ears with a blast of fierce laments from Job: ‘Why didst thou bring me forth from the womb? Would that I had died before any eye had seen me, carried from the womb to the grave. Let me alone that… Read more »
Thank you – there is a powerful sense of reality about that quotation. What always hits me about death is that the relatives have to deal with the necessary practicalities at a time when they are emotionally shattered, and at their lowest point, least able to cope with the demands upon them. The natural grieving process has to be set aside to deal with the immediate issues, and it doesn’t just go away. It remains with us for a very long time, and no matter how deep our faith is, how certain we may be of heaven, we’re bound to… Read more »
In a society loathe to name it, the Church has a prophetic voice to speak about death. Yet the bereaved must first be given space to sit with grief. Even Job’s comforters “sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great.”
Absolutely correct. Yet some Christians are afraid of grief.
given that there is no consensus in “the Church” about what happens after death, and whether it happens differently to “Christians” the prophetic voice” could be a tad confused. But then that’s nothing new, either!
Belief in the immortality of the soul has more takers these days than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. An outworking of this is the growing practice of cremating the body privately before the funeral, which then goes ahead without even an urn. A funeral minus its main character was always going to be an easier sell to Protestant sensibilities, but a RC priest tells me that he often gets such requests, which he gets around by branding as ‘Memorial Services’.
I grew up with a similar background to yours, and I’m sure God’s love is not that limited.
Thank you, Janet. Like you, I’ve managed to move away from my original view, but the very rational side of it keeps resurfacing every now and again.
Shaking that literalism – and its attendant legalism – is very very difficult, particularly if you’re not that secure emotionally to begin with. Thank God indeed for the gift of wonder.
At present I’m reading Eugene Peterson’s book “Reversed Thunder” about Revelation and ‘sanctified imagination’. Some of his comments are very pertinent in the context of this thread too – if only I had sufficient gift of imagination to see it like that,
I know this is subjective – but when sitting with the dying and conducting funerals, I have more often than not been overwhelmed with a sense of God’s love for that person, and of peace. This has happened when I have no reason to think that they were a person of faith. I think the do have a few clues in scripture, e.g. Jesus’ assurance that the dying thief would be with him in paradise; and a hint in Rom 1 that people will be judged by how they responded to what they knew of God. And for all we… Read more »
“And for all we know, that might happen at the very point of dying.” And maybe afterwards too, Janet? I’m of course being a touch mischievous.
Isn’t it time we moved on from the idea of Christians going to heaven? It plays no part in Anglican liturgy and is little more than an escapist fantasy, which many evangelicals believe and teach based on diddly squat.
Adrian, what do you think happens to Christians when we die?
What I believe is that the same thing happens to us all, when we die. I expect to be where I was before I was born. But I don’t find that in the least depressing or worrying – indeed a great deal less problematical than the “traditional” Christian belief which led people to want lots of prayers and special petitions for their souls. But I also believe that the rituals which follow death are of profound importance (to the living) and that it’s good to think about them and plan for them.
Thank you, Pam. I asked Adrian because I was hoping he would expand on his statement above.
In my view, the New Testament offers us ample encouragement to believe not only that there is an afterlife, but that it will be better than this life. As Paul said, if this is not true Christians are of all people most to be pitied.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of the NT is Jesus’ assurance that he knew heaven exists and what it is like, because he’d been there. I’m not aware of anyone else making that sort of claim in a credible way. I believe Jesus but I also wonder if St Paul got it entirely right about Christians being most to be pitied if heaven doesn’t exist. A believer approaching the end of their life may be looking forward to meeting the Lord. But if there is nothing beyond this world, then no sign is going to appear from the nonexistent afterlife… Read more »
I have absolutely no idea what form the afterlife is going to take. (There are two possible destinations according to tradition, one of which is not particularly desirable.) All any of us can say is that if, as Jesus promised, we are with him ‘in his father’s house’ it will be a very interesting place indeed.
(Rev W Awdry also had an interesting take on this question, likening our faith journey to a railway trip – ‘very good ways to get to excellent places’.)
“with hearts content and in joyful anticipation of heaven” – Common Worship, Wedding, Prayers p.113
As a lay minister who often conducts ‘crem only’ funerals, I think it so important that we continue to offer these rather just doing them for our faithful. The residual Christendom beliefs still need nourishing, the ‘smoking flax’ faith needs to be nurtured. We can present the Christian hope (I’m an Anglo-Catholic) to those who may not have ever heard it presented. One of my funerals was attended by over 300 people. How many churches have the opportunity to share the faith with so many unchurched people? I always include a section about the Chrisian faith and what we believe… Read more »
Having had colleagues accused of abuse (physical rather than sexual) in the past I’m very aware of the sort of events Stephen Parsons highlights. I fear, however, that even with perfect processes and the wisdom of Solomon there will still be times when it will be impossible to tell the true but unprovable accusation from the false one. I do not envy anyone charged with dividing the two, and getting it wrong in either direction can have devastating consequences. We can and should strive for the best processes and standards possible, but we also have to have humility to realise… Read more »
The excruciatingly awful account in the BBC today of the handling of abuse in Leicester Diocese demonstrates there is a long, long way to go to achieve even marginally acceptable processes in the CofE. It’s becoming clear why the LLF process is now without leadership. Bishops MUST be properly accountable and face the consequences of their actions.
The court case was over a year ago, but it has taken a BBC investigation to bring the incident to light . If you read the statement on the diocesan website, it sounds like a different incident , and due process (whatever that is in Leicester) was followed . At the time of the ICSA report concerns were raised about the autonomy of Bishops in their fiefdoms-so what has changed?
The Victim of the stalking by the lay minister was accused by the bishop of witchcraft, he says. The Diocese of Leicester issued a statement, on Sunday saying the Bishop of Leicester never said that. But what is the Diocese of Leiceter? Who authorised this statement? It seems to be a case that either the bishop or the victim is not telling the truth and “the diocese” has issued an urgent statement giving the bishop’s version as if it were certainly true.
Another one bites the dust.
Who bites the dust? The person who has suffered ( and still is) as far as I can see is the victim of the stalking. There is an article in the Church Times today wringing its hands over employment issues and the problem of dealing with those with a bishop’s licence. If ever a case illustrates the need for safeguarding to be removed from the power of the bishop this is yet another one. The stalker ticked all the boxes Wiki says are special interests of the Bishop of Leicester in terms of evangelism and representing the COf E’s missing… Read more »
It’s interesting you point out the ‘I could have done better’ comment. I’m picking up this as the new episcopal mantra replacing ‘lessons have been learned’ as meaningless drivel trotted out to try to avoid any real consequences for seriously botched actions. The Archbishop of Wales’ first attempt at a post-Bangor-explosion statement said something very similar, as have several of ++York’s half hearted mea culpa utterances since ++Canterbury went. You’re absolutely right – the assumption goes something like ‘well I’ve said sorry so we can just put it all behind us and get on with business as usual now, can’t… Read more »
Indeed the person who has suffered most is the victim of the stalker, but not solely becuase of the stalker. As is so often the case it is the church’s response that causes more suffering for the victim. The diocese had an investigation which concluded in the victim’s favour, but the bishop then overruled this based on his personal knowledge of the stalker as someone who wouldn’t do that sort of thing. He then accused the victim of witchcraft, (so the victim says).. When the BBC reported on this on Sunday the “Diocese” put out a statement stating as if… Read more »
“either the bishop or the victim is not telling the truth’. I just do not think it is that simple. I have known times of painful misunderstanding in my pastoral ministry when trying to work through a painful and vulnerable context with someone, I was heard to say something I did not say, still less believed. They truthfully thought I had said it. I truthfully could say I had not. It happens. Add into the mix that the story as we are hearing it is via a journalist in a national newspaper and you have another reason for being cautious.
This case is one in a very long line in which bishops have interfered with investigations/ overruled recommendations. Moreover at his meeting with the complainant the bishop had a confused aim & thus went off on a tangent discussing issues with the complainant’s suitability for ordination. He also made it a one-on-one meeting, thus ensuring that proper records would not be kept. On that note the CofE reputation is now so low that the complainant was extremely unwise not to insist on bringing a friend/ legal advisor with him, and if HR had really been supporting him they would have… Read more »
I think my point still stands. And I note there is a blog here on false accusations.
David, as you say one of the issues in any situation such as you describe is what each party hears as well as what each party says…. And I’m sure you will have had endless training on communication and checking out what the other party has actually heard – and this does not always fully work though it can help as we (those of us in caring professions) get better at it. Yes, false accusations occasionally are made too and can be terribly damaging as the blog says. All that said, I’m afraid the situation reported over the weekend even… Read more »
To be clear. I am grateful for investigative journalism. And I want those who should be held accountable to be held accountable. But I have worked at various organisational levels in the Church of England for some years and I have honestly yet to read a journalist’s account of a story or issue of which I have some firsthand knowledge that is wholly factually accurate and that does not avoid a degree of slant or prejudice in the interpretation of the facts. This is often not intentional. It is simply not a world of faith they have firsthand knowledge of.… Read more »
No slant or prejudice on your side of course
Let me reassure you – I can be as prejudiced as any. But I have not taken sides here have I? I have actually cautioned against doing so too readily, or assuming the accuracy of the sources I am forming my opinions from. That’s all.
In the early 1990s Prime Minister Mr Major was accused by Mr Gerry Adams of telling lies. Ordinarily it might be expected most people would automatically accept the word of the prime minister. Remarkably , almost everybody believed Mr Adams, and he was soon proved right. A few years ago the word of a bishop might have been uncritically accepted over that of a complainant. Nowadays the boot is on the other foot. The Church has passed it’s Adams-Major watershed. Nobody believes anything a bishop says. Undoubtedly there will be occasions a bishop may actually tell the truth,but a great… Read more »
“Nobody believes anything a bishop says ..there will be occasions a bishop may actually tell the truth.” Sorry, but such wild, frankly insulting, overstatements make informed discussion impossible.
Maybe the statement today from the House of survivors can offer a bit of balance ?
I have failed to make myself clear. Nobody is an exaggeration of course but I was trying to express what I have observed to be a now very deep public perception. When people hear two versions of a story and have no means of knowing the truth they tend to believe the person perceived as having greater credibility. It is that perception of credibility, in the public mind, that has shifted. The tragedy of which I spoke is this sea change in the public mind. It is not, I think, objectively, only an occasional thing for a bishop to speak… Read more »
Yes, I doubted the queen’s. Her duty was to keep the monarchy squeaky clean, thd Duke of Sussex was exposing the underbelly of it.
You were, if I may say so, approaching the question analytically which I admire.
In relation to the question of whether to believe bishops or complainants, you or someone with your approach, might already have concluded the bishop’s duty was to keep the Church squeaky clean and the complaiant exposing the underbelly.