In the 1970s, my father opposed the switch in women’s basketball from half-court to full-court play. He was so dogmatically conservative, he nearly did not receive tenure at a Southern Baptist college. But when he died, per his wishes, he was cremated. We held his casketless memorial service at his very conservative Southern Baptist church. Given his own Luddite Christianity, the sources of complicated grief over his death could hardly be more ironic.
The day after Dad’s recent funeral, I scrolled onto a just-published ChurchLeaders.com article titled “John Piper: Should Christians Cremate Their Loved Ones?” Piper is an internationally known Reformed theologian. The article rehashes a 2016 article arguing cremation is not a sin, but Christian burial is preferred on biblical grounds.
Brad Bull
I view these articles the way we view a public toilet where the previous occupant neither used toilet paper nor flushed their solid waste. I’m being intentionally harsh on behalf of wounded grievers who need to hear such disgust.
Piper’s fame causes far more people to be hurt by the insecurity and guilt his blather creates. So, let’s debunk his slick-sounding but fundamentally flawed logic.
First, however, I praise Piper for calling pastors to stand against the funeral industry’s exploitation of grief. If Jesus were here today, he surely would flip the tables of the funeral industry. Sadly, Piper urges churches to help pay for burials only so families will avoid choosing cremation when it’s cheaper. That brings us to Piper’s ridiculous arguments.
It is a moral issue for Piper to impose guilt on people based on personal taste and doing it via an abusive use of Scripture.
I’m not criticizing burial. I oppose Piper “shoulding” on people by turning a morally neutral issue into a sense of obligation — as in “You shouldn’t wear white shoes after Labor Day.” However, it is a moral issue for Piper to impose guilt on people based on personal taste and doing it via an abusive use of Scripture.
While Piper says he doesn’t want to ostracize people who choose cremation, let’s consider these comments:
- “Fewer people (today) test the practice (of cremation) with biblical criteria,” and “I want to give biblical pointers for why burial is preferable to cremation.”
- “Two focuses of Scripture lead away from burning toward burying.”
- “I am arguing that God-centered, gospel-rooted burial is preferable to cremation … rich with Christian truth that will become a clearer and clearer witness as our society becomes less and less Christian.”
What proponent of cremation would not feel ostracized by these statements? Piper is either being dishonest about his intentions or recklessly ignorant about the impact of such words.
Piper fallaciously appeals to emotion by pointing out horrible cases of unscrupulous funeral homes giving families the wrong ashes. That’s merely an argument for better regulation. Some car salespeople are hucksters, but we don’t stop buying cars.
One Piper acolyte commented, “Pagans practiced cremation.” This line of reasoning appeals to prejudice rather than reason — as in “Fred-the-convicted-murderer says 2+2=4.” Furthermore, pagans ate carrots, but Christians still eat carrots.
Piper likewise supports his argument with irrelevant information when he quotes — out of context — a historical fact drawn from an article on cremation by theologian Timothy George: “The first cremation in America took place in 1876, accompanied by readings from Charles Darwin and the Hindu scriptures.” Piper irresponsibly uses this to impugn cremation in the United States because of how it started. This is like saying, “The Southern Baptist Convention is bad because it started as a pro-slavery denomination.”
On what ground should you — like my devout father who could afford burial — shrug off Piper’s rant against cremation? Well, you already ignore those who say the earth is flat, even though the Bible describes a flat earth. Thus, you accept the Bible was inspired within a historical context and its symbolism broadens with ongoing revelation.
By contrast, Piper’s narrowing position is premised upon Scripture allegedly:
- Esteeming the human body in life and after death.
- Communicating negative symbolism of bodily fire.
Scripture says the body is the temple of God. But God can resurrect ash as easily as dust.
Certainly, Scripture says the body is the temple of God. But God can resurrect ash as easily as dust. Otherwise, what of people incinerated by volcanic eruptions or vaporized by explosions such as the atomic bombs in Japan or the kamikaze attack on the S.S. John Burke? And what does God do about amputated limbs or removed appendixes? Should women who have mastectomies ask to keep their breasts to be buried with them later? Of course not. This sounds more like ancient Egyptian thanatology than Christian faith.
Certainly, most Christian tradition promotes fear of the fire of hell. However, Piper ignores the fact symbols are ambiguous. In the United States, it is illegal to burn a flag in protest, but the preferred way to dispose of a damaged flag is through a solemn ceremony of burning.
Piper grants but then counters the positive images of fire. “To be sure, fire … warms, and brightens, and guides, and cooks, and refines. But in relation to the human body … (i)t wounds and tortures and kills and destroys. … As a Christian who believes in the judgment of God after death …, the last symbol we want to use, in connection with death, is fire!” However, the pain of fire to a body is only true for a body that is alive. A living person placed in a casket would agonizingly suffocate or starve, but we still use caskets for burial.
Piper’s rejection of cremation because it’s not a New Testament practice mirrors the reason the Church of Christ doesn’t use musical instruments in worship. Two Church of Christ friends once told me it takes five Baptists to change a light bulb — one to change the bulb, two to bring casseroles and two saying the old bulb was better. I replied, “The Church of Christ doesn’t use lightbulbs because there’s no New Testament record of such instruments being used in worship.” They responded, “Touché!”
Piper disparages Japanese culture for favoring cremation, asserting it’s because Christianity is not their dominant religion. He ignores the fact Japan is an archipelago where land is at a premium. The population of Tokyo alone is 37 million people, more than five times the population of my entire home state of Tennessee.
Piper’s position raises the deeper question of how we understand and apply Scripture. Is Scripture’s instruction eternally static, or is Scripture dynamic — a sacred diary originating in a historic context, its meaning transcending time and its symbols flexible to new situations?
Church leaders threatened Galileo with torture because he observed the sun is stationary, contradicting literal Scripture. Likewise, Piper’s arguments limit God’s power and our good sense, created in God’s image, to adapt symbolism to circumstance. If God is supreme and Scripture is holy and our earthly knowledge is finite, we must not elevate cultural symbols over either of these. George concluded his own article with a line not quoted by Piper: “The real question for Christians is not whether one is buried or cremated but the meaning given to these acts.” We divine image bearers give meaning by breathing life into symbols.
“Cremation” is “creation” with an “M” inserted, and it can be a powerful symbol of Christian faith as our ashes mingle with those of martyrs burned at the stake. So, let’s bury Luddite Christians’ malignment of cremation.
Brad Bull has served as a hospital chaplain, pastor and professor. He now works as a therapist and freelance writer and speaker. He can be reached at his website DrBradBull.com.
Related articles:
Colorizing the SBC’s one-paint-can resolution on euthanasia
Here’s why cremation is now chosen after 57% of all U.S. deaths