I’ve got you under my skin

I recently attended two funerals which, while making passing references to Christianity, were more cultish new-age productions than anything else. The first was conducted in a Diocese of Niagara church. The priest, whose studious efforts to avoid mentioning God were subverted only by his being compelled to do so by the funeral liturgy, buoyed by years of theological training, concentrated his potent expository talent on how the deceased would live on in each of our hearts.

The second was conducted by a lady cleric of indeterminate denomination; she did mention God and Jesus but only as an afterthought when not waxing eloquent on the cosmic life force in which, apparently, we are all adrift as we journey together, wafting through the spiritual ether like itinerant milkweed seeds never able to settle long enough to germinate.

Neither mentioned the resurrection of Jesus or our hope of resurrection. Without the resurrection we are still in our sins, there is no reconciliation with God, no hope and no coherent meaning to our lives.

So how does the contemporary pagan gain comfort after losing a loved one? By having the ashes of the dearly departed tattooed into his skin; how else?

Trish Rodgers filled a small bottle cap with her dead aunt’s ashes and emptied it into a vial of black ink. In her apartment, the tattoo artist used the combination of human remains and tattoo pigment to draw the outline of a rose into her cousin’s shoulder.

At that point, this was a practice that only tattoo artists used amongst themselves, Ms. Rodgers says. But since that evening in 2008, it has garnered attention of sociologists across the world and Canadian tattoo parlours are seeing requests for the procedure grow.

14 thoughts on “I’ve got you under my skin

    • This is a fun game too! Let’s take people obviously doing something mean and contemptible and defend them by dishonest jeering!!! Only the dishonest need apply!!!

      • I’m not sure you’ve thought that one through. Or I’m too tired to get it — which is wildly possible, I,ll allow.

          • I have literally no idea what you’re saying. I don’t know who is doing the mean and contemptible thing, and why you would want to _defend_ them by dishonest jeering. I simply cannot picture the scene in my mind in any kind of coherent way.

            My problem with David’s post is that the last bit about the tattoo, which reads very negatively to me, seems to have zero connection to anything coming before it. I understand why he’s laughing at the people in the first two examples because he explains why he does so. I don’t like it, but I get it. The pointing and laughing at the tattoo thing appears gratuitous. “Oh isn’t that just kooky?” We eat a dead dude’s flesh of a Sunday. All rituals look weird in the extreme to people standing outside them.

            • Instead of jeering and then pretending to be confused, why don’t you just apologise to David for a very nasty comment, and leave it there?

              The rest is simply troll-tactics, and we both know it.

              • Trolls don’t use their real names. I’ve been on this site for almost a year. When I’ve let emotions get the better of me I’ve apologised. To David and to others. You can look for my posts if you like.
                In this case I think my first post, while somewhat cuttingly put, is hardly “very nasty”.
                I do try to make some sort of sense. Why wouldn’t you have to?

  1. The point that I get from this is that within these two funerals, one being in a DoN Anglican Church, there was an apparent effort to exclude God from the service. Certainly not a joke (as Vincent seems to think it is) but a very sad observation of the current state of the clergy within that church.

  2. I recently attended a funeral at a beautiful 179 year old ACCoC church in Burlington, and right off the bat, the first reading was very subtly truncated. The program instructed we read to John 14:6a. What did that mean? It meant we were to exclude the second line of verse 6;
    “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
    Too exclusive so we’ll throw that piece out.
    Jesus appeared about half way through the service, and then the nice Vicar explained the Circle of Life, a wonderful tribute to Elton John’s song, coming round from birth to death, sort of like a reincarnation Merry-go-round of life. Nice.
    I spoke to the dear Vicar to thank him afterwards, but our conversation was truncated also, when I informed him I attended the loving St. Hilda’s Church in Oakville. He raised his eyebrow, stepped back with an audible sigh, and fear of infection, and found refuge at the dessert table.
    Never did get to ask him why the most important part of the scripture was dropped, like a hot potato.

    • Did you mean ACCoC as in Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, or did you accidentally add an extra C and meant ACoC for Anglican Church of Canada.
      If the former than I am surprised that the second line of the verse was dropped. If the latter than I am not surprised in the least.

  3. This reminds me of an experience I had several years ago. My wife and I were visiting a church for their lovely Sunday morning service. From the beginning we heard that a beloved member of that parish had passed away earlier that week. She was a young mother who left behind a loving husband and little children. In his sermon the pastor, who was clearly grief stricken himself, addressed the question of life after death. He said, there is life after death. He said, there is no life after death. He said, we cannot know if there is life after death. And left it at that. He did not say, these are our options, and here is where I stand. He did not pick one. He did not even suggest that we pick one. Never mind, here is what God says. I was so astounded that I was certain that I had mis understood the preacher. So I said to my wife, did you hear what I heard? She said, I was about to ask you the same thing!

  4. The ACoC has lost all its bearings and seems to believe it will survive by worshipping whatever god — notice I did not say GOD – that so-called bishops like the Primate think that society is looking for. It is no longer a Christian church as it denies both the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture.

  5. Frank’s comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. David has been hammering home this point on this blog for many years now and many believe that it is the real reason that he is being taken to court. Their goal is to punish him and silence him. Forgive them Lord. Though they know exactly what they do.

Leave a Reply