Thomas G Long
An interview with Thomas G. Long, author of Accompany Them With Singing - The Christian Funeral. from Westminster John Knox Press on Vimeo.
He talks about the growing practice in the US to have a funeral without a body (though with ashes, often). That's not happening to any great extent over here in the UK. But there is a conversation to be had about the role and purpose of a body at a funeral. In most UK crematoria it is set well apart from, and never in the body of, the audience. It is present, but not involved. There's a lack of conviction in this, a grudging acquiescence, you could say.
Great to hear Mr Long talk of funeral directors (and priests) who get it.
Labels: ceremony
posted by Charles Cowling at
09:43
7 Comments:
Mr Long comes across as a very honest and insightful sort of bloke. I don't share his faith, but several of his points resonate with me, particularly his theme that the proper function of a funeral is to bring meaning to what has happened, not to manage grief - the latter will be advanced if the former is well done.
I'm not sure I agree, Charles, with your point about the remoteness of the coffin at crematoria in the UK implying something grudging or lacking in conviction. I shall take up the theme of the body in the box in the next post on my blog.
Some people are bothered by the body being present while others insist on it. I believe it ought to be left up to the family, but sometimes family members disagree.
I agree with Tom Lynch on this: a funeral without a body is as unthinkable as a wedding without a bride.
It's not a funeral without a body, it's a memorial service.
Gloriamundi (lovely name!), I can't agree with you or Mr Long about the funeral's function being to bring meaning rather than manage grief, particularly after the funeral I conducted yesterday... I composed only the welcome, committal and closing words, and took much of my inspiration for them, as I often do, from the works of bereavement specialists such as Parkes, Worden, Attig et al.(only more poetic, obviously.)
To my surprise, almost all 50 of those present made a point of thanking me for bringing meaning to the funeral (whether to the death itself remains to be seen, I agree, but some asked for a copy of what I'd written); which leads me to see that my own experience and belief on this is that managing grief and bringing meaning are inseparable, at least in the absence of religion.
Incidentally, on the same theme as the remoteness of the coffin; despite everyone's enjoyment of the event, I was surprised again when the family said they didn't want to keep the flowers "because everyone will know they're from a funeral." Contamination (Mr Long's term, about the dead body) was just the word that came to my mind; the contamination of death. Hmmmm, I must get around to reading Sue Brayne's book (see Charles's post below).
well, Jonathan, yes and no (how irritating!Sorry) I try help mourners find some consolation, but I believe that comes from our efforts to create a narrative that means a lot to the mourners - you make the point that the people who thanked you, did so for bringing meaning to the funeral. That's how we help them manage their grief, I feel, not by seeking to manage it ourselves. CRUSE does that, if mourners need help, and they are the professionals. I'm neither hair-splitting nor hard-hearted abbout this, I'm trying to clarify my view of what we do and how we do it. I look for maximum empathy in myself when I'm meeting the bereaved to work on the ceremony, and I couldn't do what I do if I didn't feel some echo, however small, of their grief. But it is their grief they have to manage, and the meaning of a funeral is one of their tools in doing so.
Your comment is interesting - I think I'll post on it soon.Thanks.
Hi, Gloriamundi,
I can't claim to help you clarify your view on this, but you're right, it would be good to get clear.
My point was that the mourners found meaning not only in the narrative, which I had nothing to do with that time because they did it themselves, but in the surrounding (welcoming and committal and closing) words, which I focused around grieving and the role of the funeral in that process. I simply stated explicitly what we were doing, and it resonated with them.
I trained with CRUSE precisely for that purpose. Thanks for calling me one of the 'professionals', by the way! In that role or any other, I wouldn't dream of trying to manage someone else's grief, if that's what you meant (did you?). With CRUSE, I often encounter the damaging effects of a meaningless funeral. How can I bring meaning to death for others? All I feel able to do is support them in their own efforts to find their own meaning, which I believe to be at least part of the function of grieving.
Do we believe that we have to find meaning in death before we can grieve? Good question, but my answer is still, 'No, I don't think so'.
Do let me know where you'll post on this, please.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
Jonathan, helpful thoughts thanks, and I think little significant disagreement between us, really - certainly your explanation about the role of the funeral welcome, committal and closing I'm fully in agreement with - by "narrative" (I should have explained) I don't just mean the tribute/eulogy. Your elements were part of the narrative structure of this rite of pasage, and I'm sure, helped to create meaning for the mourners, to help them manage their grief.
These things are difficult to find the language for!
A full post (as opposed to a comment) would be on my blog,
http://mortality-branchlinesblog.blogspot.com/, or just click on the orange B symbol by my name, and then on my profile you'll see the blog name, "mindfulness and mortality," click on that.(Hope that's clear, I'm new to this stuff.)
Do visit and continue this discussion, if you'd like to. Your question about grieving with or without finding some meaning in death, for example, is a huge one, on which I want to field a few thoughts.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home