This erudite gentleman is taking me to task for the fact that I clearly stated, "That humanists are a 'non-religious' bunch of often confused and fatalistic people who come under the classification of 'philosophy'." I have to admit that I am 'guilty as charged', thus far.
He continues to inform me that, "Humanists are not flawed, for their thinking is logical in that they assume there to be no supernatural force at work in this world, only those forces which we choose to exert ourselves! Respect for everything and everyone (including their religious beliefs?) is the hallmark of humanism and that those who choose to minister this are seeking to make meaning of life in all its fulness."
I have to say that humanist minister is, in my definition book at least, most definitely an oxymoron, but less about descriptions and more about what has been said.
I am sorry but unless something has changed with the way they do things, humanists are 'non-religious' and are merely a bunch of people who are concerned with living within their own philosophical parameters. This surely makes them a philosophy and therefore they fall outside of the label 'religious'. They are not theists, everything they have and do is centered on themselves, so how can they claim to be 'ministers' I wonder?
Some time back I found myself sitting in on a service at a crem' which was conducted by a person who would have been a clown if only they'd had the uniform. Still, undeterred by their lack of appropriate clothing, the conducted a three-ring circus of a funeral.
Act one.
Consisted of the 'minister' reading out emails and cards from friends and family. It went something like this:
"And here's a card from Uncle Albert and Auntie Kate who say, 'sorry not to be there at your big day but we both send our love!'. here's one from all the guys at the depot hoping that you find what you've been hoping for on the other side. Jean from accounts says your tea-making will be sorely missed and hope that today goes well . . . ." And so it continued for about five minutes, more like the bit with the speeches before the bride and groom (remember them, those were the days) cut the cake.
Act two.
The 'minister' read a poem about not being gone and how, like a ship the deceased had merely left harbour and was nestling just out of sight beyond the horizon. This was finished by the 'minister' telling us (from the script which they followed faithfully from their script) how this life was all we had and whatever we did in it was all that would be left to remind others of our passage through life. The lives that we left, the loves that we had and the things that we passed on were our heritage and the finally marker of a life that, having been extinguished, was no more!
Act three.
And perhaps the most bizzare element of the circus was the playing of 'Abide with me', a hymn that the dearly departed had loved all of their life. I had to wonder whether anyone had listened to the words because they spoke of a Christian hope and a victory over death and the grave. A musical summation to the fact that what had happened was merely a focus on self and an exclamation of no hope!
The Encore
Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the 'minister' came to the front and said something like:
"My name is Coco the Clown (name changed to protect the inanely inept!) and I hope you have found something within this service to help you reflect on N's passing. I am a registered humanist minister with the (something or other humanist association) and look forward to seeing you again one day. If any of you need my services I can be found in the telephone directory or in the (something or other humanist) association's directory.
I look forward to meeting you again one day."
And then he handed out cards to people whilst they were mooching around the flower crosses (obviously didn't tell the mourners it was a humanist bash!).
No, not flawed, something so very much worse!
ps. I have been told by some who have had 'humanist ministers' the clients felt they were getting a 'less religious' service than they would have had with a 'minister'. They certainly do Stanley!
8 comments:
Vic,
This seems to echo my experience at a funeral I attended a year or so ago, of someone I had worked with an known quite well.
I had known that he was a Christian, although, as we had been out for contact for a number of years before his death, I had no inkling of the form the funeral would take.
The funeral echoed everything you describe, personal eulogies, followed by letters and notes from people he had known him (a little like a mini 'this was his life'.
Just before the end of the Service (which was well attended by many others as surprised as I was) we were invited to say The Lords Prayer?
To say that I was gob-smacked, would be an understatement. Unfortunately, I was unable to meet his family to ask why - as they were whisked away very swiftly after the service and I was unable to attend the 'wake'.
I do not understand the mix of non-religious and religious, it felt that we had not given due respect to his life and work or to the hope that I believe that he had for the next life.
Vic, this suggests some really muddled thinking for which the humanist celebrant may not be entirely responsible. It sounds as though there may have been a difference of opinion within the family as to what sort of thing would be appropriate, ending up with this mish-mash which tried to please everyone and almost certainly pleased noone (who thought about what they were doing).
I wonder how the family and friends now look back on this occasion.
I have to say that having seen more than one, it seems that the muddled thinking appears to be rather largely on the part of the 'minister'.
Interestingly, I knew the family of one of the people being cremated and they were confused as they thought they'd had a 'Christian-lite' service rather than a 'no faith' event.
Most amazing was the fact that the person being cremated had, many years ago, been a churchwarden and still apparently had a faith (of sorts). The family didn't want the local dog-collar and so had opted for the alternative person on offer.
This makes me wonder how funeral directors 'market' humanists.
We do live in strange times. I do want to suggest, though, that humanists are every bit as religious as anyone else. To be sure, they don't adhere to a traditional religion, nor is it perhaps institutionalised (although these folk you indicate belong to an association), but I think that all humans are fundamentally and inescapably religious. That is, we all worship someone or something. So I think the question is not so much whether or not they are to be considered religious, but what they worship. In the case of the humanists, 'logic', whatever 'forces' we choose to exert, and so on. I would suspect they will want to deny it, but I think religion is intrinsic to human nature. Everything we do is an act of worship, whether in service to God or an idol.
Jake,
I have to say that I share your thoughts regarding the fact that humanists are religious. I'm in conversation with a person who claims that they are a not atheistic in their views but is 'fully humanist'. I have suggested that perhaps they might consider themselves to be a syncretic humanist (I await a response to that).
Everyone, atheists included, worship and serve something.
Thanks for your post,
V
I had a work mate for many years who was a very strong atheist, and frequently ridiculed any faith (such as mine). Then he died (alone, and undiscovered for days). His funeral arrangements were made by his brother, who had it taken by an ageing Christian priest; I felt very uncomfortable when the holy man talked about the deceased's probably afterlife, etc. Then, a month or so later, I had a vivid dream in which the (formerly-)deceased was very much alive and, dressed in a clerical collar, was on his way to conduct a service (in my old school chapel). I took this as a sign that maybe our Christian hope extends after death even for staunch atheists; he was redeemed.
"as religious as anyone else" (Jake Belder) Very curious! Jake should be made to define "religious". People don't want God (or committment to anything, or the "cost", as Bonhoeffer put it) and yet they still want to be able to be on the inside; they want anything that's going - for free. At least the atheist collegue in my story (my earlier post) was consistent; he would never have allowed himself to be called "religious" (also, he was consistent in that he acknowledged that he was a materialist - indeed, he was proud of the fact; this is a position I can respect). Most people, I'm sure, do "believe" in something - normally it's themself.
I recall the saddest funeral I've ever been to. That of a humanist. People got up and said things that were nothing short of lies about the deceased, with no intention of support for his bereaved mother and wife. It was empty and shallow, with even less to offer than the atheist's funeral I was at a few weeks prior or the Hindu's the following weekend. And a long way short of the joy and celebration that I'd experienced at the funeral of a well venerated, ancient (she was born on Feb 29th, and only celebrated HER birthday on that day, and just failed to get to 25 by her counting...) and joyful Christian.
Trying to "be nice" at funerals is all very well, but being gentle and honest is often far more appropriate and supportive of those left behind.
Post a Comment