Tevildo, thanks for presenting the two bible-quotes on both sides of the " should Christians abode my human law" issue.
Hmm… I’ve heard so, too. I attend mob-burials even more rarely then gangsta-burials, ( 
) But my impression is that there, Catholic though they may be, it’s the same thing. If a real-life Tony Soprano dies, I doubt any Catholic priest will say even something subtle as “Let us pray for his soul” which would, at least indicate that his soul could use it.
“with God” would tend to imply choice “a” (but, still carry along the disclaimer that we don’t really know what’s in someone’s heart, only God knows and can decide what has happened to his soul. That’s a given. Failing to state that is like failing to say “and water is wet” at the end of every sentence. We all know that the pastor/priest doesn’t know what’s going on with Tupac’s soul, we know that the best he/she could possibly do is guess, and that guess is on incredibly flawed information. Just because it isn’t said out loud every time doesn’t mean that it isn’t known.)
If someone were to want to imply “b,” the phrase would be “Tupac is now in God’s hands.” And there’s a tone that goes with that statement.
From the Prologue from Ohrid, for March 30:
See **Breaking the Waves ** for an excellent portrayal of this.
An “altar call” is a direct invitation for people to follow Christ (and usually to make a public show of doing so by moving toward the altar) right now.
Saying “X behavior is sinful” is not necessarily an altar call, though often they are combined. Also, comforting someone can become an altar call, too.
The choices at the funeral are not so binary. The officiant choose to say nothing. They could condemn a certain behavior, or they could leave that for another venue. They could condemn the person, or they could leave that for another venue. They could offer words of comfort to the mourners, or they could leave that for another venue. They could just read a generic reading. They could just pray a prayer. They could do any combination of the above.
Gigi, I’ve seen the movie and I know what you mean. The girl in the movie is, on first sight, heavily promiscuous, and she gets condemned for that by her society and her priests. However, she does it out of a kind of love for her husband. The movie has a strong emotional appeal because she doesn’t harm anyone but herself with here behavior. I can’t say as much for a gangsta who’s raping and killing.
But there’s always a golden optimum between condemning too much, or for the wrong reasons, and not condemning at all. With the Tupac-example, I believe there’s too little condemning going on. Personally, I feel we should try to minimize misery on earth. Condemning harmful behaviour is one of the tools we have to that end, and it is a tool that, IMHO, should be applied with care to have a maximum effect.
Hero worship for thugs like Tupac only encourages impressive young minds to follow in his footsteps. I’d like it a lot if somebody could lessen the perceived desirability of Tupac’s behavior. I don’t know how that should be done, and I do appreciate the desire not to judge in lieu of God’s. But I do feel that church officials neglect a moral responsibility here.
We Christians believe that if a person accepts Christ as their savior then they shall be saved. Specifically, if you truly believe that Christ died for your sins then your sins will be forgiven, this is the foundation of accepting Christ as your savior.
Uncommon Sense, suppose Tupac had never ever said, or believed, anything to the effect of accepting Jesus as his savior. Then he dies, and after the funeral Tupac’s mom asks you if Tupac is in heaven or in hell.
A: where would you, honestly, think Tupac hangs out, and,
B: what would you tell Tupac’s mom?
I think again, you may be confusing real life with the movies. I’ve never seen a pastor hero worship or glorify gangbanging. Ever. I’m sure it could happen, in fact, if we search long and hard enough, we’ll find that pastor. But, in my experience, violence is pretty thoroughly condemned when it comes up in churches. What you’re seeing in movies is not really representative.
So what’s with “This is what God wants for me/him/her/them/us” or Robertsonian condemnations of gays/Jews/Muslims/etc? If Christians can’t judge the dead, why can they judge the living?
Just because some of them (us) do it, doesn’t mean they (we) are supposed to! The New Testament says (via one of Paul’s epistles) that what non-believers do is not our business to judge or condemn.
But Christians do things that they ought not to do, and often don’t do things they should - Paul admitted to this himself. Only Christ himself didn’t do it, and he’s the only perfect example of Christianity. (A lot of people forget this.)
Of course not. But the relatives and friends will do their utmost to make light of the deceased’s wrongdoings, and they will glorify everything they can.
If a priest stands by that and doesn’t speak out, or even frown or look sceptical, then he will seem to approve or agree with everything that is being said.
Fair enough. I have nothing to say, except that I only wish all Christians had your viewpoint on this.
amarinth, I know that the church does condemn violence, in a general way.
So why don’t they speak up during a funeral? When they could make a big impact on those present? (IMHO they could do so without unnecessarily hurting the feelings of the people grieving; those probably already know that unca Tupac wasn’t a saint).
They don’t do that because they know the relatives don’t want to hear it? Since when has the Church been in the business of telling people what they want to hear?
I think I’m going to send this off to debate land.
Moved from IMHO to GD.
I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy here - comforting the family is itself a moral duty, and by comforting them the priest is making a moral stand, proclaiming that Christians believe, with hope and fear and trembling, that God’s love is powerful enough to save even the greatest sinners.
Sure, there’s a tension there, but it’s a tension that goes back to the very beginning. After all, Jesus told Peter that he had the power to bind and unbind, in a passage that has been interpreted as the basis for the moral authority of the church, Matthew 16:18,19:
Sounds pretty much like Jesus is telling Peter to go to it and make moral judgments, even of the dead, doesn’t it?
But after the Resurrection, Jesus gave Peter a much simpler commission, in John 21: 15-17:
The job of the priest is not simply to condemn sins, it is also to comfort the afflicted. The dead are beyond earthly power to correct, but the survivors need comforting in their grief.
Some do, notably those of the Amish strain of Christianity, as well as some of the related Mennonites.
However, most Christians distinguish between God’s laws and humanity’s laws. It is not our job to judge where a fellow human stands in relation to God - but it is acceptable and indeed desirable to have an orderly system of laws made by humans to govern human affairs. Judging and determining righs and obligations under man-made laws is not a usurpation of God’s role in assessing an individual’s state of grace.
A sinner who truly repents will want to change and will want to try to undo the harm he or she has done. But sometimes that is not possible, because of the course of human events, for example in the midst of cruxifixion. Even there, God’s love is available to the repentant sinner: “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
Okay, but I repeat myself, what then about Tupac’s 10 year old nephews, and all other ten-year olds who watch footage of Tupac’s glorious burial? Don’t they need correcting, and why does the Church shrink from that duty?
So, a mobster dies and there is no evidence whatsoever that he repented anything, except maybe not getting head mobster. So, this unrepenting sinner would go, in your opinion, to hell, right?
It’s just that Chruch officials seem so polite, or, if you will, show lack of courage when it comes to condemning sin, in the case of absolutely in-your-face-blatant sinning. (I’m talking violent crimes, not homosexuality). They don’t even condemn the sin, apart from the sinner, which would be the ligthtest form of condemnation.
I can understand they don’t want to upset grieving relatives; but Is there really no way of saying something to the effect of: " Mr Mobster loved his family, and tried to do his best under difficult circumstances. Other then that, he lived by the sword, and died by the sword…" Is even that too much to ask?
The alternative explanation is that the modern American Church is not eternal at al, but simply a product of modern American culture. And in that culture, lcertain kinds of sex are bad and immoral, violence is bad, but understandable and kinda cool, and church officials’s job is to tell the paying members of their particular congregation what they want to hear.
Maastricht, another possible alternative explanation is that there is a time and place for speaking to the specific issues of sound moral judgment and there is a time to practice one of those moral values: comforting the suffering.
If you are a minister, one of your duties is to comfort the bereaved. I don’t know if you’ve lost anyone close to you or not. The fathers and mothers of wayward children still deserve to be comforted in whatever way that a minister can do it with integrity. It is a good time to remind the grieving that God is a merciful God. Sermons about responsibilities are generally for another time.
There are ministers, however, who are able to interweave the two affectively. If someone dies a violent death, a skillful speaker can both comfort and teach. But it is still not the ministers place to pass judgment either. There is a difference is being discerning and in passing judgment.