Any pastor taking funerals in England is likely to encounter a wide range
of beliefs about death and the afterlife, sometimes expressed even within the
funeral service itself, in a tribute or a poem. There are poems that claim “I
did not die” (Mary Elizabeth Frye) and poems that proclaim “I fall asleep in
the full and certain hope / That my slumber shall not be broken” (Samuel
Butler).
Given this diversity of beliefs, it has not yet ceased to amaze me to
discover that there is one conviction on which everyone seems to unite – a belief
that is regularly expressed at our around funerals and never, it seems,
contradicted. It is a notion that is not readily compatible with the Christian
tradition and yet put forward by Christians as well as non-Christians,
religious people as well as agnostics and atheists.
It is the affirmation that a person’s death brings an end to that person’s
suffering. (Death does of course usually increase suffering for others but it
is widely believed that at least the dead no longer suffer.)
What are the grounds for such a belief? Obviously, if a person suffers
from a severe illness, this suffering comes to an end in the absence of a
functioning body with which to experience the suffering. In this sense, the
suffering has come to an end – like the suffering of the woman abused by her
partner once she has left him. But we know of course that such a woman, now
protected from the physical blows of her abuser, might still suffer and
especially so if she loves her abuser or her children are still with her partner.
We know about mental anguish, depression and all sorts of suffering that
has a physical manifestation and even often a physical cause among others but
cannot be reduced to physical pain. Why do we believe that such suffering
always comes to an end with death?
Is it because you need a body to experience the pain? This would be a
good argument. Materialists who believe that when our bodies cease to
function, we are gone, extinguished for ever, can affirm that someone’s death
does indeed bring an end to that person’s suffering (as well as their joy and
everything else).
Indeed, something similar (although ultimately quite different) could be
said from within the Christian tradition by those who believe in “soul sleep”
(e.g., Martin Luther, as far as I know) or affirm “non-reductive physicalism”
(e.g., Joel B. Green).
What puzzles me is that the belief that there is no suffering beyond
death is so firmly anchored also among those who assume that the dead still
exist and live somewhere. What is the basis for this firm conviction?
Is it that we believe the dead to be “in the hands of God” (or some
benevolent force) in a way they were not while they still inhabited mortal
bodies?
It never seemed to me wise to query such beliefs in the context of
bereavement and funeral. But when we reflect on our mortality in other
contexts, e.g. on Ash Wednesday, we may do well to ponder these things. Are our
bodies to be blamed for suffering? Is death to be praised for bringing release?
Life is gift. Life is not an entitlement. Life is not an achievement. Life
is gift. Sometimes we cannot receive this gift without suffering. Sometimes
suffering can be a gift because there are things worse than suffering. Arguably
death is one of them. Our hope of freedom from suffering, certainly all unnecessary
suffering, should rest in God, the giver of life, not in death, the destroyer
of bodies.
