AND IN CLOSING . . . *

Well THAT was fun. I haven't had so much activity around here since . . . hmmm . . . since . . . oh yeah! . . . since the discussion about women priests.

So the tally looks like this: Four people (Mary, Young Fogey, Mark and myself) are anti-eulogy people. Three people (Tripp, David and Da Youth Guy) are in the pro-eulogy camp. And one person (Ryan) said it depends.

There were several issues/comments raised in this whole thing, so I'll answer them here rather than in the comment section of the previous post.

Young Fogey and I don't agree on everything (women priests for instance), but this is one area where we do. He says, "One of my rants is that modern church funerals have become de facto canonisations . . ." One of the problems with a service of eulogies, as I see it, is that we miss out on the message of resurrection. We miss out on the certainty "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Mark mentioned the prodding officiant and open mic problem. This really seems to be at the heart of my earlier rant. Not the eulogies, per say, but that the officiant kept prodding people to come forward. Well, that and his inability to stop talking.

David (who is pro-eulogy) and Ryan (who said it depends) seem to be saying much the same thing. Eulogies can add something wonderful to the service. A personal touch that can be extremely meaningful. And it can. I officiated at the funeral of a well-loved man in town who had driven school bus for years. The funeral was huge. It was in the gym. They played "Born Free" (really). But the wife allowed five friends to give eulogies. That would seem to be the better way to go. To have a person or people set aside who would deliver the eulogy. Much preferable than open mic. It's that "personal touch, if done right," as David said that's the clincher. If done right.

And my dear brother Tripp told me to lighten up. But then he also said, "The real concerns about manipulation or coercing people into speaking should be addressed. But no service has a time limit, not really. No sermon has a time limit, not really. We can suggest, imply, and pray fervently that we not have to listen to a 55 minute series on the life and times of brother Bob. But in the end, the service does not belong to the presider...it belongs to those who gather and to God."

He's right. It doesn't belong to me. But I got the distinct impression that the officiant was trying to make it his. From the continual prodding in an attempt for more eulogies to the homily that wouldn't end because he had "just one more thing to say," this funeral was very much about making the officiant feel good.

And Da Youth Guy said about his mother's funeral, "We heard from folks who loved mom why they had loved her. In that we shared our grief at losing her. What better place that in a place of faith to do that? Or is church really just about the liturgy?" You can't separate church and liturgy. Liturgy is how we do church. It's how we pray. It's how we worship. It's how we come together as a community. Liturgy is the work of the people. And prodding people to give eulogies to fill up space is poor liturgy.

So in closing, if eulogies are in your tradition, so be it. But please don't continually prod people to speak. If you've offered an open mic and asked for people to come forward, people will eventually quit lining up to talk. When that happens, let it end and move on. And please don't ramble through your homily, continually finding "just one more thing" to say.

And with that, I will now continue packing for my trip to Chicago.