Is Dr. Mutsch Playing With Fire?
By: Paul S. Perdue. Originally published in Student Voice 7.1

I. INTRODUCTION

Let me warn you that you may find the following statement shocking - It appears as though the editor of The Student Voice has been recently dropped from the PCC Update mailing list. . . . (I can just sense your collective sigh of grief and pity at this terrible predicament I have been subjected to. .. . .) I am no longer capable of gleaning the immense wisdom expounded in the published articles, and I can no longer send my résumé for teaching positions since I have no alternative means (at least I have not independently chosen to exercise any other means) of learning about open faculty positions. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, and for those of you who are offended, I apologize. . . but lighten up.)

Despite all of these predicaments, however, I did recently come into possession of the latest Update (Spring 1997 edition), and frankly, I am embarrassed. I am ashamed to admit that my undergraduate degree is from the same institution that published this Update, and I am humiliated that thousands and thousands of people have read this issue and will be reasonably capable of drawing the conclusion that the thought process involved in the topics discussed is typical of PCC students/faculty/alumni, etc.

I am referring primarily to the short article titled, "What About Cremation," written by Dr. Mutsch, PCC's Vice President for Administration. Before I address the article itself, understand that this is not an issue of PCC rules (to which most people incorrectly pigeonhole every idea of The Voice). It is not an issue of internal PCC policy, but it is an issue regarding a public statement of morality and Scriptural doctrine. This article was written by a PCC administrator in a PCC publication to the general public (or at least a specifically targeted segment of the general public), and as such, the public has a reasonable expectation to be able to comment on it, and as Christians who are part of the same family and who are engaged in a joint effort of demonstrating truth to the world, we have not only a reasonable expectation to comment, but a RESPONSIBILITY to check the erroneous conclusions of our brothers and sisters in Christ (Matt. 5:13; Gal. 2:14).

The essence of Dr. Mutsch's article is that it is unbiblical and thereby sinful for a Christian to utilize cremation as a means to dispose of his or her body after death. This is based upon three propositions:

(1) Fire frequently symbolizes judgment, and so it is therefore "inconsistent" for us to utilize this symbol of judgment to dispose of our bodies after death; (2) The New Testament pattern is burial, therefore burial is the only appropriate means of bodily disposal; (3) Ground burial is the only method that honors the body, God's temple.

II. SOME ADDITIONAL HISTORY

Cremation is neither an unusual practice, nor is it a new one. It has been used by virtually all civilizations in every recorded era of human history. Some literature records the first cremations to have been conducted by the Slavic tribes of the Dniester and Dnieper River valleys in modern day Russia. There is also extensive evidence to show that cremations took place during the Neolithic Era, as pottery vessels containing the remains of cremated bodies have been discovered in Neolithic graves in Bohemia, Moravia, central Germany, Hungary and Great Britain.

Despite Dr. Mutsch's assertion that cremation is a practice with "pagan roots," experts seem to agree that no one knows for sure what reasons inspired this practice, or what "roots" it really does have. Some believe that it was to provide warmth for the deceased in the afterlife. Other archeologists and anthropologists believe it was originally used because the ancients understood that fire was a purifying agent, thereby reducing sanitary problems. Cremation was also used, say some experts, to alleviate the problem of bodies being dug up by beasts or by enemies.

In fact, the Greeks began using cremation around the year 1000 B.C. to protect their war dead. Their enemies were known to dig up the remains of dead warriors and to ceremoniously desecrate them. The Greeks, after wising up to their enemies' tactics, began cremating the dead soldiers and then bringing them back to Greece to be entombed with great ceremony and honor.

In many cultures cremation was only reserved for the wealthy and famous. The grave furniture found associated with cremations have almost always been much more elaborate than those connected with ground burials. This seems to have been true with the Romans as well, for Ovid states that both Remus, one of the mythological founders of Rome, as well as Julius Caesar were cremated.

>From the invasion of the Danes in 787 A.D. to Harold the Saxon's defeat by William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings in 1066 A.D., cremation was the primary means of bodily disposal in England, after which the practice faded until the middle of the 19th century. People began to be concerned with the rapid urbanization of their society, and this spawned a renewed interest in the practice of cremation. Sir Henry Thompson formed the Cremation Society of England in 1874 and led the way to convincing the English Parliament to officially legalize cremation shortly after the turn of the century. Today cremation is the most popular means of disposing of the dead in England (as well as Japan).

>From the third century's rapid spread of Christianity until the late 18th century, their was a strong opposition to cremation by the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, and while Dr. Mutsch would lead us to believe that this opposition was due to the reasons stated in his article, the opposition was actually due simply to the Churches' belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. (They no longer hold to this position.)

Cremation is simply another form of final disposition. It merely "speeds the time from when a person dies until he or she returns to the earth in a natural state." In fact, the word "funeral" (a ceremony with pagan roots?) comes originally from a Sanskrit word of northern India which means "smoke."

To characterize cremation as being primarily a pagan practice or having pagan roots is to ignore the historical facts. Do not confuse an activity that was used by pagans (as even burials were and are) with that which has pagan roots.

III. SOME COMMENTS

A. Context The first question I would ask, although not directly related to the substance of the article is, why is cremation even a topic in a PCC Update? It can be conceded that this is not an entirely uninteresting issue, but is it at all relevant? Understand the context - this is a topic about death and how to dispose of one's body sent to people who are primarily college or pre-college age. Is this something they think about often? It is doubtful. Is it something they think is important to their lives? Also doubtful. Are there not numerous other issues which are much more appropriate to discuss with the targeted audience than a process of bodily disposal after death? Of course. Or perhaps this is a serious issue confronting today's Church? I don't think so. To put it another way, of all the issues, struggles and burdens that teenagers and college-age students are dealing with in the 90's, and the questions they have in trying to decide on a college and a career, cremation is not one of them. This clearly demonstrates just how out of touch the PCC administration really is.

B. Fire as a symbol of judgment It will certainly be conceded that fire was often used in the Bible as a symbol of judgment. However, this in no way states a principle that fire may not be used for other purposes, such as cremation by us as Christians. There are at least two faults with Dr. Mutsch's proposition. First, while fire symbolizes judgment, it both symbolizes and is used in the Bible for many other purposes. It was used to cook meals (Ex. 12:8). To be a guiding light and a symbol to follow (Ex. 13 & 14, Ex. 40:38, Ps. 78:14). To symbolize God's Holiness (Ex. 19:18, Is. 31:9), and His Glory (Ex. 24:17, Deut. 4:11,12) .. To offer sacrifices (Lev. 1 & 6, Gen. 22, I Chr. 21:26). To glorify God (I s. 24:15). As something we need (Prov. 26:20). As a sign or a message from God (Ez. 1:4, Acts 2:3, Jer. 6:1). As the protection of God (Zech. 2:5). As a purifier (Mal. 3:2, I Cor. 3:13). For warmth (Acts 28:2, Mark 14:54). Of beauty (Rev. 9:17). You see, although fire is often used to symbolize judgment, this does not state a principle that we may not use fire to dispose of our bodies after death. If this is the case, then what else may we not use fire for? Shall we ignore sanitary considerations, a shortage of land, convenience, or a host of other reasons to use fire to dispose of our bodies simply because fire was used as a symbol of judgment in Scripture? What is missing here, because it does not exist, is the element which links the premise to the conclusion.

Second, Dr. Mutsch states that "It is INCONSISTENT for Bible believers who have been saved from the judgment of fire to use this method to dispose of their bodies at death." (Emphasis added). "Inconsistent" with what? To use fire for something other than judgment? Is it also "inconsistent" to use fire to dispose of our trash? Where is the inconsistency? There are two concepts here, judgment and disposing of one's body after death. According to Dr. Mutsch, there is some principle which makes the two acts "inconsistent" with each other, yet he never states what it is. The Scripture is silent on this point, and so the only inconsistency is something that Dr. Mutsch has made up himself. It would be as if I were to say that because a door is often used to symbolize Christ's means of salvation (a means for us to enter), it would then be "inconsistent," and thereby sinful, for me to prop a door on two saw horses in my garage and use it for a working table.

C. New Testament pattern teaches burial as opposed to cremation The premise here is that since the New Testament does not teach cremation as an appropriate means of disposing of one's body, the conclusion may be drawn that cremation is wrong. Dr. Mutsch states that this is because (a) Christ was buried and we should follow His example, and (b) there are five recorded examples of burial recorded in the New Testament. There are at least four problems with this reasoning and interpretation.

First, if it is true that because Christ was buried, we should be buried, then the inverse of this would also be true - since Christ was crucified, we should also be crucified. Since He was a "full time minister," we should forsake all "secular" occupations as well. In other words, we are not free to deviate from the literal actions that Christ engaged in. This simply cannot be supported by Scripture.

Christ's life gave us a pattern to live by, and none of us would deny that, but to draw the conclusion that Dr. Mutsch does ignores reality and substitutes his own interpretation of Scripture for one that simply cannot be maintained.

Second, not only does Dr. Mutsch give you five irrelevant examples to support his position (John the Baptist, Lazarus, the rich man, and Ananias and Sapphira), but he also fails to include examples which contradict his own assertions. In I Samuel 31, the Old Testament records the death of Saul and his sons. Do you know how the Israelites disposed of these bodies? That's right, they burned them. (See verses 11-13). Also, in II Samuel 5 it is recorded that David, after slaying the Philistines who came up to war with the new King, burned the bodies of the dead at Baal-perazim. See also II Kings 23:20.

Third, the whole question of cremation is one of personal decision (at least this is the way Dr. Mutsch characterizes the issue). In other words, the issue is not cremation itself, but the decision to cremate. Therefore, for Dr. Mutsch's proposition to stand, it must be presupposed that the examples cited in the New Testament involved a personal decision to be buried. Other than the example of Christ, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the individuals cited made a decision to be buried. Perhaps they did, but most likely they did not. Either way, we do not know, and we cannot base a doctrine on what we do not know and upon something with no basis in Scripture.

Fourth, there is an obvious causal relationship problem. Dr. Mutsch states that since Scripture does not explicitly condone cremation, it is therefore wrong. Do you think he would therefore agree with the proposition that since the New Testament did not specifically permit Christian colleges, PCC is a Scriptural violation? This is precisely the argument that was incorrectly used by Dr. Horton to disavow the article on authority in Issue 1, No. 1 of Th e Student Voice, and it is the typical intellectual quagmire PCC doesn't even realize it is often in.

D. Ground burial as pattern to be followed There are at least two basic problems with this assertion. First, Dr. Mutsch contradicts himself when he states, "Since we do not own our bodies, we do not have the right to do as we choose" (the "Christians-have-no-rights" doctrine?). But yet his whole point is that we DO have the right to choose - we have not only the right to choose, but we have a responsibility to choose burial. To say that we do not have the right to choose burial presupposes that the choice has been made for us already, yet there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. So, do we have the right to choose, or do we not?

Second, there is again the causal relationship problem. In other words, since burial is the only method of disposal mentioned in the New Testament (even though it is not the only one mentioned in the Old Testament), it is therefore the only permissible method to dispose of one's body after death. Do you suppose that Dr. Mutsch would also hold to the proposition that since the New Testament knows nothing of catching fish with anything but nets, it is therefore unscriptural to catch fish with a rod and reel?

E. Other Considerations There is at least one other problem with accepting Dr. Mutsch's conclusions as stated in his article. As Christians, we know that "to be absent from the body [is] to be present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8). We also know that our bodies are simply "temples" for our spirit (I Corinthians 6:19). Therefore, once we die, our bodies become only empty carcasses that once held a person. They are simply dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27, Job 13:12), and whether we dispose of them by burial or by cremation, they will ultimately settle back into the earth. Do our bodies retain some sort of moral relevance once our spirits exit them? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, but either way, there is no support for jumping from this premise to the conclusion that burial is the only way to dispose of an empty shell.

IV. CONCLUSION

This is a classic example, again, of PCC and fundamentalist thinking - since I think X should be a doctrine, and even though Scripture and history do not support X, I will still maintain X as a Scriptural doctrine and TEACH IT TO OTHERS AS GOD-ORDAINED.

The frightening conclusion that can be drawn, and against that which The Student Voice is, for the most part, attempting to provide exposure, is that THIS is the "standard" by which PCC teaches its students "truth." When PCC advertises to you and your children that it has the standards needed for you or your child to "be able to pillow their heads at night with a clear conscience," this is what they are referring to. The problem is that there is no identifiable standard by which PCC operates other than its own wisdom and whims. In the real world, this is called "secular humanism." And as Christians we should be fighting to our last breath any organization which calls itself Christian yet operates upon this philosophy. It's none of our business? Think again.