I have watched the two funerals of President Bush – yesterday in DC and today in Houston, and want to share a few thoughts:
In the Jewish world, funerals are rather simple affairs. Prayers are minimal – anyone can preside (usually, but not necessarily, a rabbi and/or cantor), caskets are simple pine boxes (in Israel bodies are laid directly into the ground without caskets). All are equal in death, it is said; this is not the time to show off. (Of course not every Jewish funeral meets this “accepted” standards.)
I would assume that, in the world of Episcopalians, things are different. And I accept that, and have no problem with it.
But there are extremes, aren’t there? And so my questions:
- Why was it necessary for President Bush to have two separate funerals? Isn’t one funeral enough (perhaps followed by a memorial service (or even services)? Is this normal for a president? Is it normal for anyone?
- What are the nature of the funeral services (assuming, for now, that two separate services are appropriate)? The funeral service in Houston, preceding the burial, took place in St. Mark’s Cathedral and was, I assume, a standard upscale Episcopal service, with a few added wrinkles for a former president.
- But what about the service in Washington? Yes, it was at the National Cathedral, an Episcopal church, I understand that. But it seems to me that the Washington service is as much a state affair, as a private religious affair. After all, think of all the federal money that went into this funeral and the surrounding activities (come to think of it, I have no idea what portions of a president’s funeral are covered by public funds, and what are covered by private funds, or what the full amount if federal funding is – I should find out).
- As a state service (at least partially), it seems to me that questions of the appropriateness of specific religious content should be up for discussion.
- There were clear differences in the religiosity of the Washington and Houston funerals – no question about it. The Houston funeral was a religious service; the DC funeral partially religious and partially state. The speakers (all of whom did an excellent job) avoided any sectarian specificity. That would include Jon Meacham, Bryan Mulroney, Alan Simpson, and of course George W. Bush. They might have made reference to the spiritual beliefs of the late President, but they did not pontificate themselves. Not so with the clerics from the National Cathedral and Reverend Levenson from Houston (who also participated in Washington).
- I didn’t have problem with the Christian elements of the service per se – the music, the recitations, etc. Music is non-sectarian by its nature, and the recitations can be ignored if a guest chooses to do so. But I recall a couple of remarks by the clerical speakers that rubbed me as inappropriate. Two, as a matter of fact. One was a reference by Rev. Levenson was that the best way to lead a life, one which we should all strive for, is to emulate the life and teachings of Jesus (at least that is how I heard it). The other, by one of the local prelates (I do not remember who it was), simply assumed that everyone in the audience was Christian.
- Someone suggested that there is not only in this country the question of “white privilege”, but also the question of “Christian privilege”. Assumptions are made without thought. Obviously the audience included atheists, and non-Christians of various persuasions – Jewish, Muslim and so forth. I just don’t think that evangelizing or assuming that all are members of the largest club in the area are appropriate for a state sponsored and state recognized even
That’s it.
Arthur Thinks (He Thinks) 