From the funeral director’s point of view, these are fighting words; bad enough on paper, but when followed up by the corporeal presence of a clergyman with the family at the crucial moment of the selection of a casket, they constitute a call to arms. “The man who has the clergyman making the selection for his families does have a nasty problem,” wrote an undertaker.
The posing of this nasty problem in the pages of Mortuary Managementproduced some very down-to-earth advice, best relayed by quoting from the correspondence of the funeral directors who participated in the discussion:
There is one possible solution to the problem of ministers accompanying families to the casket display room in an attempt to persuade them to purchase a minimum funeral service…. The funeral director should do a little “pre-selling.” …Then take the family into the showroom, introduce them to a few caskets, showing them the price card, and say that you realize that the selection of a funeral service is a very intimate and personal thing which the family alone can do and that you want them to be able to do this without the influence of others. At this time, invite the minister to join you in your officewhile the family discusses the selection. [19]
The scheme of separating the minister from the selecting group by “invit[ing him] to join you in your office” is discussed more explicitly by the next writer:
We tell the family to go ahead and look over the caskets in the display room and that the minister, if he has come with them, will join them later. We tell the minister that we have something we would like to talk to him about privately, and we’ve found that if we have some questions to ask him, he seems to be flattered that his advice is being sought, and we can keep him in the private office until the family has actually made its selection.
Just in case the point has not been thoroughly clarified, a third writer describes in further detail how best to lure the unsuspecting man of God from the side of his parishioners:
Ministers seem to be getting into the act more and more, and, in general, becoming more and more inimical to us…. We make a point of emphasizing, during our pre-selection period, the idea that making the selection is something that only the family can do…. We emphasize this very strongly, particularly if there is a minister around. Also, we make it a point to think up something to talk about, if the minister comes with the family… such as the new addition to the church property, their parking problem, the local Boys’ Club in which they are interested, their golf game, politics (a red-hot subject in this part of the country right now!) or anything else that will keep them occupied and happy while the family goes ahead with the selection.
A fourth writer throws in the sponge:
We have this same problem of nosy clergymen in our town, and I am convinced that there is nothing that can be done about the situation. We tried!
Compared with these views, those expressed by most clergy themselves are moderate and even tolerant. Their occasional criticism is mild and reserved. Some of the clergymen with whom I discussed the matter confessed to having been sorely tried from time to time in their dealings with the funeral people. Most of them—including the most outspoken foes of high-priced, showy funerals—made a sharp differentiation between the funeral price-gouger and the “honest, ethical mortician.” Others felt that the funeral director is in a sense the prisoner of his own wall-to-wall carpeting; that, having installed all the expensive gadgetry and luxurious fittings, he is obliged to charge high prices in order to pay for the upkeep of his fancy establishment.
I sought to learn from a number of churchmen of different faiths something of ecclesiastic attitudes towards the funeral service. What are the actual ritualistic requirements; what is the status of the dead body; what is the position on “viewing the remains,” on the willing of the body for medical research? How closely does the sort of funeral generally provided today conform with the traditions of the church? What, if any, criticisms are there of today’s typical funeral service? Should the clergyman participate with the family in making the actual arrangements for the funeral—should he go with them into the selection room? These were some of the questions I had.
The Right Reverend James A. Pike, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California at the time, came out foursquare in favor of the “nosy” clergy. He urged that the pastor be called in first—that is, before the funeral director is consulted—when death occurs. The clergyman should accompany the family to the funeral parlor for the specific purpose of helping them to resist the pressures towards overspending. In any event, the casket, whether pine box or magnificent solid bronze, is, in the Episcopal Church, covered with a funeral pall during the service—“the point being to minimize the showpiece aspects. We feel that earthly remains are not to be made that much of.” Although the clergy strongly favor moderation in funeral expense and simplicity of decor, individual freedom in the choice of a coffin is respected: “If people insist on doing something foolish in the matter of funeral expense, that’s up to them, of course. What’s sometimes wrong is the element of pride, apparently fostered in the advertising approach of some funeral directors. In terms of a remedy, a lot of teaching in advance is needed—the use and purpose of the funeral pall, and why it is our position that the casket should be closed during the service.”
What about the practice of displaying the body in a slumber room at the mortuary before the funeral? “This might bring some comfort and peace to the relatives; one can see that the widow might wish a final glance at the deceased. This is a private affair, up to the family to decide.” While Bishop Pike was neutral on the matter of the “open casket” beforehand, he was definitely opposed to it during and after the service. “This is not merely my personal view,” he said. “Our tradition does not favor the ‘viewing of the remains’ after the service by those who have come. In other words, when the casket is closed after the preliminary period, it remains closed.”
Theologically, Bishop Pike explained, the body has served its sacramental purpose, that of housing the personality of the individual, “which in life to come receives a new, appropriate means of expression and relationship.” The remains are not the person; they are rather like discarded clothing. Nevertheless, as the outward and visible sign of personality, they are to be treated with respect and reverence. In the same way, the presence of the casket at the funeral service has a symbolic function, much like that of a flag in a parade. There is no objection to cremation; on the contrary, most Protestant clergy think it a very good idea. The memorial service, at which the coffin is not present, is also quite permissible, and this practice is, in fact, on the increase.
Is there any contradiction between the reverent treatment of human remains and the bequeathing of those remains to medical schools for research purposes? “No, a positive, constructive use of the body for medical research is by no means irreverent. It is in fact a noble and fine thing for a person to make such provision in his will. We believe in the Resurrection and the continuous personal life of the individual spirit, not of the earthly remains.”
Speaking of the use of flowers at funerals, Bishop Pike explained that while people are free to have flowers sent, this is not encouraged. More and more frequently, donations to charity in memory of the deceased are in order. “When many flowers are in fact sent, in many churches they are placed in the narthex or in the transept—except for flowers in the two vases at the altar.”
19
Italics in the original.