Francis Spufford is unapolagetic

As a secular, or "humanist," celebrant, why am I recommending this book to you, when it is about the nature of Christian belief in the modern world - at least, as far as one believer is concerned?

Two answers to my own question (sorry, it's an irritating rhetorical tick, I know, but somehow one has to get started...)

Firstly, I'm not a secular, or humanist, or anything else, celebrant. I'm a funeral celebrant. The whole belief/non-belief thing is, I feel, a huge red herring. (Red basking shark?) My beliefs are usually entirely irrelevant. I will do what a family wants. If they asked for a priestly function such as a formal blessing, which would make me feel inauthentic, I would ask them to call for a priest. 

I'm not an ordained minister, I can't and shouldn't do "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.." etc. The issue hasn't arisen yet because I'm usually simply asked to organise a hymn or two, or lead The Lord's Prayer. People have the sense to ask for a priest if they want one, and someone like me if they don't. Last week an out-and-out atheist, next week a "possibilist," week after a non-Church-going sort of Christian, week after a mostly-ex Muslim who wants some religious music played. Fascinating work, no room for useless polarisations. What I believe in, as a celebrant, is good funerals.

Secondly, because this bloke:

has written a really useful book, which I also thought was a very good read.

He explores, in an entertainingly firm, conversational way, why he finds it makes emotional sense for him to be a Christian, and he comes at you with all guns blazing if you try to hide behind the usual liberal laziness. He's very cross about the way our increasingly secular society responds to Christian beliefs. He makes me feel that he is often right to be cross.

There's a bit where he is sitting in a church contemplating - well, infinity, I guess - looking for the presence of God - which is a terrific read, and relates, for me, to a mindful awareness of the universe in the present moment. 

There's another bit where he re-tells the story of the woman taken in adultery - the one they were all about to kill by chucking stones at her - which I found intensely moving.

His is not the voice of the apologetic fence-sitting cleric, nor the wearying clamour of the evangelical bore. He just goes straight for it in a way that certainly made me, a non-Christian in most senses of the word, sit up and think. 

One of the things that drove me away from Christianity when I was a lad was the teacher, allegedly a Christian, who looked for an easy rationalist excuse for miracles. Walking on water? Lots of sandbanks in the Sea of Galilee. Burning bush? Spontaneous combustion of subterranean methane. Oh, FFS, as we say these days, either they were miracles or they weren't. Francis Spufford is:

I salute him for it. Don't sneer at Christians unless you've read this book. (Well, don't sneer at them anyway, it's not nice - but you know what I mean!)

GFG questions about secular celebrants

This posting is in response to a thought-provoking rumination from Charles on 26th May at

http://www.goodfuneralguide.co.uk/blog/


A valuable posting, Charles. I'm a humanist celebrant, so in response, in no particular order:

1. The BHA warns the celebrants it trains not to attempt to earn a living from it; a few try to. They are short-changing themselves and others. The BHA can't seem to stop them, because we don't work for them, they merely accredit us. You're absolutely right, it should only be a portfolio worker's or retired person's activity. What the BHA should do is not train them in the first place if they are clearly going to use it as a means of support. On a related but different point: it is may be a real advantage (if you see what I mean) to have been bereaved yourself, and to have arranged a funeral, if you are talking to other bereaved people.

2."..except to say the stuff that others don't feel up to." I feel a bit short-changed on that one. There are skills developed by a good celebrant that not so many people can easily draw on, even if they are up to it at a funeral. This isn't necessarily only to do with the grief people feel, that they worry will stop them speaking.

3. Most funerals are at crems because people don't investigate funerals until they have to, and it's a bit late then - they get channelled to the crem not just for the cremation (essential, obviously) but for the ceremony too (most definitely not essential, as the GFG makes very clear!)So crems aren't the celebrant's choice. If we were better reconciled to our mortality we would have better (more varied, effective, "thorough") funerals. There's only so much celebrant A in conjunction with family B on a particular occasion can do about that. Meantime, all power to the elbows of GFG, Greenfuse et al.

4. I've never sucked up to an FD, or supplicated for referrals, and I don't intend to start. Take it or leave it, choose me or not. I try to get on with them, and I keep them informed, which just means I send them contact details and explain what I do. I like and respect most of the FDs I know. The other few, well, I button my lip and get on with it. FDs refer families to me, but I do what I do for the family and the dead person. The few celebrants I'm in contact with could say the same, I'm sure. There are two FDs I will never work with again (not that they have asked me...) because they were so casual and disengaged. You don't expect them to be in tears, but you do hope they won't behave as if they were watching telly whilst doing the ironing.

4. I worry about the uniqueness point. Of course the eulogy bit is entirely unique, but I say a little of the same (or pretty similar)at many ceremonies, because I believe it to be true, not because I can't be arsed or because I'm doing too many funerals. No-one has raised it (and yes, I have seen people at more than one of the ceremonies I've been involved with.)

5. I think we secular celebrants (BHA or otherwise)should work harder to vary the form and nature of our ceremonies, and see ourselves more as facilitators(much as I hate the word), only taking over proceedings when we are needed. We need to erode the default mode. This is very hard to do if you have too many ceremonies on! And it takes a lot of thought and care. Some people really do want "the usual," and it may unsettle them if you try to move them too abruptly away from it.

6. Yes, I'm sure many ministers expend much time and care. Others, as far as I can tell, suggest by their behaviour that they don't. But it is pretty obvious that with two hymns, a quiet bit and a prayer or two, they have to do less unique thinking and writing themselves, in the usual 20-30 minutes. In the end, "comparisons are odious." They do what they do, and so do I.

7. Will we "accrue ceremonial significance?" Not as a priest does for believers, because we are not mediators, we belong to no church, we have no parish or communion. Do we have ceremonial significance? Of course, at the time, just as a family member does who speaks, or a singer who sings. Do we have ceremonial authority? Only if we earn it by the quality of what we do. Ritual? That's a fiercer matter and harder to get to. But please don't assume a religious funeral has any real ritual power just because it is led by a priest. Convention doesn't necessarily = ritual power and effectiveness.

8. So: what's the max we should be involved in? (I try not to speak of "doing" a funeral, as in doing the washing up. I try to remind myself that the ceremony doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the people who've asked me to help.) I've been involved in three in one week, twice, and only then for specific reasons. I couldn't do the job justice if I did that every, or most, weeks. I've been at two in one day, three times - for specific reasons, again. That was, suprisingly, OK. It's not chiefly the ceremonies, it's the writing and thinking time that must be protected, for a good ceremony, and the time to talk through, check back, refine etc. On average and in general, I'm taking part in four and a bit funerals a month. I'm bringing that down to three, or even two, by referrals to colleagues, so that I can improve my practice. When I rule the country (only a matter of time) then no secular celebrant will be allowed more than three ceremonies in a month. But they would have to take more than six a year, to keep them on their toes and in practice. In practice, the demand for ceremonies and the supply of celebrants will never be so neat and tidy.

I hope this doesn't come across as too self-righteous, but it seems sensible, in response to Charles' questions, to describe what I do and try to minimise assumptions about what others do.

GFG never stops providing food for thought, I'm pleased to say, and if you chance upon this and haven't been to GFG (unlikely but possible) then I urge you to visit Charles without delay.