The bible says that humans have no way of knowing if God, knowing what he knows, will ultimately condem someone to hell, or save him in heaven. Anything a priest or anyone would say about that is idle speculation. (True, IMHO)
In general, a true Christian should abstain from morally judging anyone. The only way to warn any sinner off is to tell him that the Bible says that he should abstain from sinning. Just telling him. No legal action, no persecuting, just free speech. It doesn’t matter if the sin is against the very Ten Commandments themselves (killing, stealing, working or shopping on Sunday), or if some lesser command is violated, for instance any one of the Leviticus commandments, including the bans on homosexuality and wearing clothes of mixed fibers.
Christians should not morally judge: just compare behavior they perceive to what they read about it in the Bible and share their views with the sinner. (I think this is an admirable effort, by the way!)
The Bible (along with common decency) tells us all, in John, and expecially priests, that comforting grieving relatives is more important then trying to teach them, or the attending congregation, a lesson. If a skilled speaker can do both, all the better; if he can’t he should choose comfort over teaching. Teaching can best be done another time. (Here I agree as well. My only beef with this last one is, that in general, sinners will only come to church if they need comfort. I’m afraid they won’t stick around for the teaching. )
True, also IMHO. Even expressing an opinion on the subject is explicitly forbidden.
Morally judging a person. It is OK, again IMHO, to judge actions.
“Murder is wrong” - OK.
“You committed murder, and are therefore going to hell.” - Not OK.
Not necessarily. Turning someone over to the cops because they beat up your son or something is legitimate. I think you can also take action against someone to prevent their committing a sin if it is against someone else, or if you are in some position of authority over them (like a parent).
The stuff about Leviticus is another matter entirely. Christians are not bound by Jewish ceremonial or civic law.
I don’t think it is as hard-and-fast as that. I don’t think the passage in John’s Gospel necessarily establishes a Christian duty of not speaking ill of the dead at a funeral.
I think a funeral sermon of “the dear departed is burning in the fires of hell at this moment, so take a lesson, you sinners” is a violation of the “judge not” clause. But the message that “God loves you more than you can imagine, and has done everything to bring you life everlasting” is more or less the only thing the Church has to offer. Thus it is nearly always more appropriate than fire and brimstone, even at the funeral of a notorious sinner.
None of this should be construed as a claim that I have never done as bad or worse. And it might be entirely appropriate for a minister to insist that some gang-banger not be buried wearing his colors, or the like. I know of at least one instance where a pastor refused to preside over a funeral, because the family wanted to include some non-Christian ritual in the burial service. Which strikes me as OK.
I would add shunning. Christians have no obligation to deal with people they feel are not living a properly moral life. Consider it a form of encouragment. Secondly, people do have the right to defend themselves against evil.
Shodan has a pretty good summary of the proper procedure. Also remember that according to traditional Christian understanding, nobody is “good enough” to warrant Heaven on his own merits; we’re all sinners, from Francis of Assisi to Mussolini and all in between, saved by God’s grace and mercy through the work of Christ. The scene with the departed confronting Peter at the Pearly Gates for judgment is fun for jokes, but it’s not good theology. God reads the heart, and the intent, and He is both just and merciful. In fact, Jesus was quicker to forgive “sinners” by the social code of the time than “the righteous” who were in the business of judging the “sinners” while believing themselves sinless (and sinning in the process of doing so).
This is supported strongly by some comments of Paul’s. But it gives rise to a self-righteousness among the self-appointed “moral Christians” as to what sins are excusable (e.g., divorce) and what are not (e.g., homosexual desires). Jesus’s own example was quite otherwise. He sought out the immoral, not for judgment and repentance, but to grant them forgiveness and healing.
In short, you’re reporting a quite valid traditional stance, Smiling Bandit, but I’m disagreeing (with the premise, not your reporting it) and offering reasons I believe it to be wrong.
Have mercy, oh Lord, upon thy servant Adolph. Though his life was bereft of mercy. Lift him up with Thy love, perfect, and greater than the love of man. Give unto him the grace You have promised unto thy children, though he does not deserve it. For it is not by Adolph’s righteousness that his soul is made anew, but by thy overcoming love.
And let me live by thy word, oh Lord, not because it earns for me the divine gift of everlasting life, but because it is right and good. Let me speak out when evil is being done, and forgive the sinners who have done evil, even as you have forgiven Adolph. And so also as you have forgiven me.
IIRC correctly. “Repent/change your mind/turn around for the Kingdom of God is at hand” was the initial theme of JC’s preaching, and He did tell the adulterous woman He rescued “Go, and sin no more”. Judgment, repentance, forgiveness & healing are all part of JC’s ministry.
RE Shunning- Paul only recommended that when Church-members were in blatant sin & being a bad example inside & a cause for discredit outside the Church- then the Church had to publically distance itself from the offender, but
still work for reconciliation. (I Corinthians 5). Jesus did set up a proper order beginning with personal caring confrontation & ending with church-expulsion, in which the offender is no longer considered within the community of faith, but as
a subject for outreach (a tax-collector or Gentile).
Re Hitler’s eventual reconciliation- if it occurs, it’s not because of any goodness within him that God is desperate to salvage, but because of the sheer goodness of God. We’re not too good to be eternally condemned. but MAYBE God is too good to eternally condemn us. However, God could still eternally condemn us all & His goodness remain complete.
This has been done, in the past. Pregnant brides: “No big wedding with a big white dress for you, keep it subdued!”. People who took their own life: “No burial in the churchyard for you! We’ll give you a small hasty burial somewhere else”.
As far as I know, however, it has never been regular practice for churches to refuse the burial of a known murderer, as long as the family kept up some form of decorum. Shodan spoke of a pastor who refused a burial flaunting gang-colors, but I can’t recall a priest asking for a subdued burial for a know murderer. Bottom line, being violent in the USA is, culturally if not religiously, not something to be ashamed about.
Triskademus, that’s a good example. A speech like that at least *mentions * the sins of the sinner, and that was what I wanted a church official to do. However, I prefer gangmembers and mobsters as modern everyday examples of sinners, because the problem of what to say at their funerals will still come up.
That Tris’s speech contrasts the sin of the sinner with the depth of Gods love and forgiveness is in accordance with how Christians have explained the concept in this thread.
Does anyone know if burial-speeches like that are common? Even mild references to the sinfullness of the departed’s violent life, contrasted by God’s infinite capability of understanding?
Tupac led a hard life. He tried to do his best, as God knows. Tupac led a violent life. He is now with God, and bathed in Gods love, we are sure that Tupac regrets the violence and the suffering it caused.
This is actually a tricky area, and, as others have suggested, one of the reasons Christians have so many denominations.
Paul teaches that Christians are saved through faith, not works. His two requirements for salvation are that you confess with your mouth the Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God rose him from the dead. Per one of John’s epistles, no one can do the first (and arguably the second) except through the Holy Spirit.
However, Paul, James and Jesus all teach that once you are saved, that’s not the end of it. Paul states that a Christian is saved specifically to do good works, James says that faith without works is meaningless, and Jesus on numerous occasions says that Christians are to do good in the world (let your light shine before men, for example, or a tree is known by it’s fruit). The most famous example I remember from when I was a Christian is the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus berates those on his left (the goats) who claimed to have prophesied and cast out demons in his name, but didn’t do anything to help the least of his brethren (the poor, the sick, etc). It’s even suggested that he revokes their salvation at that point. Those that did do these things were welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven with open arms.
As paradoxical as it sounds, Christians aren’t to do good works in order to be saved, but because they are saved.
As for Tupac, he was a rapper. Rappers, in my opinion, belong in the circle of Hell reserved for people who drink decaf.
Oops, this zombie has come to life because I referenced this thread in a recent one with a similar topic. Still, tmarcl, that is an interesting take on it. I have heard some Christians say before that people can’t be really good unless they are Christians. That is a slap in the face of the 70% of mankind who are atheist or of another faith and try to be good and moral persons, but… <shrug>.
Anyway,
taht is interesting. That could be a peice of scripture to cite at such burials. But, again…that isn’t done.
Part of it is because God is the judge, another part of it is we are judged how we judge others, and part of it is the great unknown that death represents to us.
Jesus saved the guy dieing on the cross, it is possible that that could happen to anyone dieing.
