Burial vs. Cremation

There are some layers to understanding the Bible here. Here's my overview of the issue. 

1. The practice of people who followed God in the Bible was to bury, NOT to cremate. This seems to be for 2 related reasons:  1) Separation from other religious practices. 2) Expressing a belief about the body's future. Other religions cremated because they believed that in death, the good soul escapes the confines of the evil/plagued/unnecessary body. This is not the biblical understanding of the body/soul relationship, nor of the future that God has designed for people. 

God made human beings to be body+soul creatures. He designed us to flourish body+soul. Incidentally, this is why we enjoy food, sun, water, mountains, music, etc. Aesthetics are sensorial. They are aspects of the physical and embodied nature of our existence. To be embodied is not bad, but it's part of how we experience the glory of God. This one application of what Romans 1:20-23 says about how the invisible God has manifested His invisible attributes and His glory through what He has made. 

The incarnation of Jesus and His resurrection further prove that body+soul is good and is God's design for humanity. It's true that when we die, our souls leave our bodies and go into the presence of the Lord. But in the future, when Jesus returns, we will be raised beyond death and we will be given new, resurrection bodies (1Corinthians 15:35-55). We will inherit a physical+spiritual new heaven and earth (Revelation 21-22). Then for all eternity, we will be perfected body+soul beings in communion with God, others, and all of the physical universe. Because of this, Jews and Christians practiced burial as a declaration that the body is good and it was buried in hope that it will be raised and renewed in the future resurrection of all things (John 11:24). 

So Jews and Christians practiced burial because of their belief in image of God in the present physicality of the universe and the future physicality of the resurrected and renewed universe. They rejected the way that other religions discredited or repudiated the physical. It is true that it's possible to cremate for other reasons than to reject the goodness of the physical present and future. This leads to my next point.

2. I believe that the practice of burial in the Bible is DE-scriptive, rather than PRE-scriptive. This means that the Bible reports what God's people did, but does not say that this is the only way to do it. There is no command from God to bury. Burial is what they did because of what they believed about the present and future. I think that it's possible to cremate without believing in a pagan understanding of the "free-the-soul-from-the-body" or "reject the physical in favor of the spiritual" dynamics. Even if you do bury someone, that person will return to dust in a way that is not dissimilar to the ashes produced by cremation. Both ashes and dust reflect the undoing of the process of God bringing human life into the world (Genesis 2:7). 

Because people can choose to bury or cremate and still have a robust faith in the Bible's worldview of the body, I think this is an issue that is similar to the "Meat Offered to Idols" issue that the early Jew+Gentile church wrestled with. Paul addresses this issue thoroughly in Romans 14-15 and in 1Corinthians 8-10. His conclusion is that it's okay to eat or not eat as long as you are doing it (or not doing it) as an expression of your faith in Jesus. Along these lines, I believe it's okay to bury or cremate as long as you are doing either in faith--meaning that you believe in the goodness of the physical of the present creation (even though the present creation has been marred by sin and temporarily cursed) and you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and in your own future resurrection.

3. It's most important to make a decision based on your faith in the resurrection from the dead. If God will raise you to live beyond death, if God will give you a new body and have you live forever in a body+soul reality, then I think you want to make a decision that reflects your faith in that future. Many people just don't worry about it. They think--well, God can find the ashes or the dust wherever they are and just put it back together. I would suggest that people handle someone's remains in a way that shares with those left behind your faith about your future. So I would suggest (this is my best wisdom, but this isn't the only way) that whether you bury or cremate, choose a location for the remains. This honors your body and it honors you with a place. Your soul will be with Jesus from the day you die, but your physical remains will have a location that can be remembered and honored by those who you leave behind.

Intellect and Emotions are not at Odds? EVERYONE is emotional

Here’s a development of thoughts we began on Monday. I’m very excited about this. I’d love your thoughts and feedback.

Being emotional isn’t in tension with being intellectual. Intellectuals are emotional about their ideas and about being right.

The real question is what is producing the emotional reaction in people who aren’t moved by ideas and being right? Is it relational connection? Is it the closure of a good story? Is it a sense of rightness that is told in a narrative vs. propositional arguments?

In Exodus, the purpose of priestly garments was “for glory and for beauty.” Romans 2 says we are to seek for glory and honor and immortality. Psalm 8 says that being made in God’s image means that we are a little lower than angels and we are crowned with glory and honor. Maybe “beauty” is not only a description determined by characteristics that something has. Maybe beauty is in part indicated by the impact it has on others. Maybe beauty is a description that indicates that something is showing all who look at it or think about it that something is ideal in it. Maybe things that are beautiful actually show us something beyond the ordinary, maybe beauty is a reflection of God’s image In things. Maybe beauty is an indication of the glory of something. That It affects others, it impresses and amazes and it puts people in awe. They have to stop and stare, they are mesmerized. They worship. They devote themselves to it. Maybe that’s what beauty is and what it’s for.

JBP says that one of the personality trait is broken down into two different things:  apprecitation of ideas vs. appreciation of aesthetics. This dichotomy might be an indication of non idea driven (non logically driven assessment of –assessment of things. This would fit with the idea that there is something aesthetical or beautiful that “non-intellectual” or “non-logical” people are drawn to moves people very deeply. I also believe that these other aesthetical or beautiful things that move people are very logical and rational (meaning that when they are understood they both make sense and can be explained), but that many people feel the right-ness of it before they are able to explain it, and many times for various reasons they don’t end up getting explained.

The more I think about this, the bigger it gets. Appreciation of aesthetics doesn’t just have to be physically appealing things like beauty. This is important because when conflict happens in marriage, in friendships, in churches, in politics, etc. very often the conflict is the result of the two (or more) people valuing different things, or having a different order of priority for their values. This also relates to Jordan’s rule 4, which includes a discussion of the reality that what we focus on is what we see. So often in the church, conflicts arise because people thing one thing is most important and that one thing is different from what the leadership thinks is most important. For instance, which is more important—caring for people or theological accuracy? Obviously both are important.

So the thing that I would love to discuss further is this:

The issue is not Intellect vs. Emotion. The reality is the intellectual people get emotional about logic and ideas.

What is it that “emotional” people are getting emotional about? It’s not that they are emotional, where Intellectual people are not. Everyone gets emotional—intellectual’s peoples’ emotional commitment to ideas just doesn’t look like what an “emotional” person’s emotional reaction looks like. But I think that emotional reactions are actually what both sides have in common. So what is it that produces the emotional reaction from people on the “emotional” side of the spectrum? Understanding this would help us to create new categories for people and lead us to understand them much better. Here are some suggestions:

What moves non-intellectual people to become emotional?

Beauty—there are people who are moved by and committed to beautiful things, artistic things, things that are visually compelling.

Relationships—there are people who think that people and relationships are the most important things

Feelings—there are people who think that how you feel is most important

CASH VALUE OF THIS IDEA:

Knowing that people are moved by different things can help a lot when there are disagreements. Maybe the conflict is the result of different people valuing different things? Maybe the way to engage in conflict is to step back and ask yourself, “What is it that this other person is valuing? How is what they are valuing a reflection of something good? How can I affirm the value of what they are valuing? How can I share what I’m valuing in a way that is a ‘Yes, and…’ rather than a ‘No, but…’?”

This seems like it could really impact marriages, churches, friendships. It would lead to much richer conversations.

What do you think? What other things are there that move people to become emotional?