I am pleased to report that the Order for the Burial of the Dead for Claiborne Pell, former US senator from Rhode Island, which took place in Newport at Trinity Church yesterday, January 5th, was lovely and moving. The Burial I office seemed to be followed closely (the broadcast chopped off the opening anthems), the readings were beautifully done by family members, and the hymns were nicely played and sung.
But there were major differences between this service [#] and little Rhody’s next previous major Episcopal funeral, that of Senator John Chaffee at Grace Church, Providence, in 1999 [*]. The differences do not reflect on either extraordinarily – for US senators – honorable, and patrician, gentleman. But comparison of the two funerals does provide a meaningful indication of serious decline in the Episcopal Church over the past decade.
One difference between the two services appears incontrovertable: The CNN video of the Chaffee service is indicated to be just under 50 minutes. The Pell C-Span coverage is over 1 1/2 hours. The relative conciseness of the Chaffee service was (based on feeble personal recollection) a result of Father (and former US senator) John Danforth seeming to be in charge: the service appeared to be liturgically proper, appealing, and complete. Moreover, Father Danforth preached an engaging, and true, sermon. To-be-senator Lincoln Chaffee recited a poem (entirely from memory); his older brother had provided the eulogy. If then-president and in-attendance Bill Clinton took the lecturn, he must have kept it short.
But guess who seemed to be in charge of the Pell service? Politicians.
The initial reporting after Pell’s death indicated that there would be two speakers (the Roman Catholic rubric?): a grandson and a current or former senator. An hour-long service was planned. But what actually took place between the readings and the Petitions/Prayers of the People (there was no Eucharist) ranged from appropriately poignant to unbelievably awful.
Senator Edward Kennedy spoke first (for 7 minutes and 40 seconds). Extremely frail but resolute, he demonstrated a long and genuine friendship with Pell. Bill Clinton was next (8:20) and was his usual masterful self at the lecturn/podium. Then came Joe Biden, who confirmed his blow-hard reputation with a rambling, sometimes incoherent 24-minute schpeel (the TV camera had to turn away from him for the final minutes). RI Senator Jack Reed was next (8:15 … do you suppose that speakers were asked to keep it to about 8 minutes?). His Fort Ticonderoga story was a gem, but his link to Pell seemed otherwise to be no closer than marching together in a July 4th parade. Eponymous ‘Nick’ Pell (7:30) spoke movingly of loved, if peculiar, traits of his grandfather.
Then came RI bishop Geralyn Wolf (7:00). No Danforth sermon from her! Did she have to correct Nick Pell’s assertion that she had returned from Africa for the service? And she should have stuck to her notes when she stated that RI has the most Roman Catholics and Episcopalians in the country (she surely meant proportionately) and referred to RI’s shameful “trade slave.” Somewhat baffling were her statements that “Jesus was all about opportunity” and “Life is always victorious over any death.” (Would that be this life? … or the sleep after death, or final Resurrection? … “Paging John Donne!” “NT Wright, come in please!”) Finally, Bishop Wolf betrayed her thin Pell family relationship with at least one anecdote preceeded by the dreaded “I’ve been told that …”
And should I have winced as I did when the priest who led the Petitions filled in the final “Grant us, with all who have died … ” petition with “… blessed Claiborne and all thy saints … “? Maybe not.
Here are some questions:
When did “The Burial of the Dead” change to “A Celebration of the Life of …”? Will the next Book of Common Prayer use the latter as the title of the office?
Who sanctioned all the awful eulogies/personal stories that now eviscerate what used to be one of the most beautiful liturgies across Christianity. When did “dispatching” join the “hatching”, and “matching” as bizarre variants of the intended Pastoral Office? When did officiants/celebrants stop adequately preparing for these liturgies?
How many more opportunities will there be – i.e. with its burial service, and prominent such occasions in particular – for the Episcopal Church to show that it hasn’t gone totally loony?
–Mr. Pete Haynsworth is a layman in Rhode Island
The eulogies given at the service were perfectly in keeping with the stature of the deceased, Senator Claiborne Pell. If anyone this blogger knows can keep Joe Biden, Vice Pres. elect, from talking when he wants to talk, then he is doing this country a disservice by keeping that knowledge secret.
Layman Haynsworth seems unaware that Bishop Wolf had only hours before returned from an arduous return journey from Africa. His remarks are uncharitable, at least. Cheap shots, at best.
Why Kendall Harmon thinks this is worthy of attention escapes me.
If “good politics is bad economics and vice versa” then it does it also follow that “good politics is bad theology and vice versa”?
I can’t speak for Kendall. But maybe he thinks the Episcopal Church has gone totally loony, and he keeps posting things — small as they are — to demonstrate that.
I find it interesting that eulogies, or sermons of any kind for that matter, have made their way into Anglican funerals. For many years, until the 20th century for the most part, there was no sermon at an Anglican funeral. It was a straight up liturgical rite with the service being a worship of God and not the deceased.
Eulogies should be kept at the wake, or at a specific memorial service. The rectors I have been fortunate to serve under made it quite clear that Requiem masses were about the Holy Sacrifice and imploring the mercy of God for the deceased. And that’s how it should be in the Catholic tradition.
In our reasserting church, eulogies are delivered before the service begins (before even the processional) so as not to be a part of the liturgy. Works very well.
For the record: layman Haynsworth submitted a [url=http://exploitenterprisedata.com/t1_9_posting.pdf]revised posting [/url] 10 hours before his _initial_ submission appeared on T1:9. The revisions reflected having been able to actually (re)view the 1999 Chafee service as well as some spell-checking (duh).
In layman Haynsworth’s worthless (by definition) opinion:
* A strong, assertive priest-in-charge of the Pell service would have kept the politicians at one … it should have been Ted Kennedy.
* That Biden is vice-president-elect doesn’t mitigate the fact that his conduct at the Pell service was totally inappropriate. Someone should take him aside and strongly advise him … before he’s “Quayled.”
* If Bishop Wolf wasn’t up for officiating at the Pell service, she should have begged off. She could have taken the role she had at the Chafee service – she was the presider? But it’s very likely that she justifiably wanted to avoid a repeat of _that_ role. Also, it’s known that Bishop Wolf can “dish it out,” so she surely can “take it.”
Actually, traditionalist layman Haynsworth could not care less whether the Bible should be interpreted literally. But he _does_ think that the _Book of Common Prayer_ should more literally and rigorously interpreted and its rubrics enforced. The “big tent” should be strictly bounded by this uniquely Anglican treasure. For lay Episcopalians to be clueless about the BCP is one thing; for the Church’s clerics to ignore it is another matter altogether. Indeed, Bishop Wolf, very admirably, has strived to “herd her cats” (her diocese’s clerics) along these very lines.
Layman Haynsworth reads, and very occasionally suggests postings for, TitusOneNine because that blog best reflects a traditional viewpoint while avoiding the virulence of, say, HOB/D and, lately, Stand Firm.
#1 if you wish to know what I think, you can ask me directly. Guessing what others think is rarely helpful I have found.
I thought the post raised the very interesting issue of the nature of pastoral practice at funerals in the Episcopal Church.
I apologize to Mr. Haynsworth that due to work obligations I was not able to post his amended piece in a more timely manner.
Pete [#7]: Thank you very much for your report. It sheds light on troubling tendencies in ECUSA and elsewhere.
One practice involves addressing oneself to the newly departed: “Winston, [i]wherever you are[/i] [this phrase is obligatory], we’ll miss your good cheer and generosity. We’ll even miss your practical jokes. But we won’t miss your after-dinner farts.” The eulogies become a sort of stem-winding retirement party. If people want funerals like that, fine. But not in a purportedly Christian service.
Kendall
I did not wish to know what you were thinking. I wondered what you were thinking. I did not ask you for an explanation, although I am happy that you provided one. I wondered what you were thinking because I have found your blog very helpful and informative, and for the most part, even handed and fair. It is obvious that the tone of PH’s piece is critical of the form, and not the content of the service until he comes to the matter of the role of Bp. Wolf, whereupon his attack in the matter becomes personal and focused narrowly on her percieved shortcomings. I don’t think many preachers today compare well to Donne. Do you? Perhaps he would have been kind if he had known how really exhausted she was.
I think it is fair to say that noone who is serious about this church and its future is happy about the situation that the church is in. I am not. I just have this gnawing feeling that back biting and carping about percieved personal failings of others is not the way to go. Was the service for Pell materially different than the service for Chafee? No.( Although there may have been Holy Communion for Chafee, I am not sure.) Was the presence of the Holy Spirit not invoked? The Holy Spirit was there. PH is complaing about a puddle when Niagara is flowing!
Also, Kendall, I notice among re-asserting bloggers that they love to find fault! I think it is a little perverse. The problem is that it is so easy and it’s great to feel so morally superior. Have I got that right?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Thanks, Layman Haynsworth, for writing your piece and commenting further on it.
[i] Re-asserting bloggers . . . love to find fault! [/i] —Augustine [#10]
Unlike all other people. And certainly unlike the HOB/D listserve.
Fault finding is inconsistent with a life dedicated to growth in Christ. The point is that fault finding is not good, not that many people suffer from it. {12}
Really? We’re not allowed to notice and point out faults anymore?
Wow.
Maybe we should all be blindfolded! . . . And gagged. ; > )
The point is that fault finding is inconsistent with growth in Christ. That statement is true.
#15, I think the point is that unnecessary coarse crass personal criticism is inconsistent with such growth. Finding fault is nothing more than the application of a standard, which standard we hope is a “right” one and is from the Lord. What we do after we apply that standard, and find that it hasn’t been adhered to, and how we do it are the problems, I believe. If we can’t find fault, then we become relativists, like many of our reappraising brothers and sisters and anything goes – we live in a Spockian world of unreality. There is no right and there is no wrong. Everything just is … and we have to control our reactions to what is so as not to upset anyone and to ensure that all reactions are positive so no offense is ever taken about anything. Not the world of the cross, I don’t think.
Just to put in my two cents, it isn’t fault finding in and of itself since by that standard Jesus himself would fail, as for example in Matthew 23 to pick but one example. But it is the manner and tone of such criticism and I do think the frequency that matters.
And here I think is commenter Augustine is rightly onto something which is that among some commenters here, and certainly, if I may generalize, among American reasserting Christians, there is a rush to judgment too often and a harshness in too many of such judgements. There needs to be more generosity, more restraint, and, yes, more love.
This is a word we need to heed and pray about going forward I believe.
Oh! Merci bien, Kendall.
RE: “The point is that fault finding is inconsistent with growth in Christ. That statement is true.”
Well, no. That statement, in and of itself, is false.
I think I have made my point here, at this time. Fault finding is not edifying to the body of Christ. Canon Harmon, whose blog this is, agrees with me in principle, and I am glad for that. The little elves may have license to edit in and out, and thereby obscure the impact and meaning of what I have written, but there is no denying that I have basic agreement from Canon Harmon, who is an acknowldged leader in the life in Christ and more importantly for our purposes here, a balanced individual. I would suggest that you take heed of what is being said. Start showing love.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]