R.I.P Justice Scalia

[James_Gale]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?

Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?

[Donald_Kirchner]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?

Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?

No, they're funerals.

"As a not-as-young pastor now in the early years of the twenty-first
century, I still hear at funerals things said about the dead Christian that
are not true. The problem is that I hear them said by the pastor, as part of
his sermon. These are things which, strictly speaking, are not true. More
importantly, these are things which, theologically speaking, are not true.
And so we ought not to say them. Because ultimately, statements such as
the ones highlighted below downplay the real meaning of death, and they
diminish the great hope of resurrection that is God’s answer in Christ to
the reality of death. The following are things that should not be said at
funerals...

Third: “John has gone to his eternal home.” This utterance contains
an echo of a Biblical way of speaking, but it is terribly misleading. In 2
Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is dealing with the prospect of death, the hope of
the resurrection body, and how these matters interrelate. His primary
hope concerns the resurrection body that will be given to him and to all
believers “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4;
cf. 1 Cor. 15:53f.). Until he puts on that dwelling, Paul and all believers
groan, along with the whole creation (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22-23). The gift
of the Holy Spirit, however, is the “bridge” between this mortal existence
and that immortal, resurrection life–the Spirit is the “guarantee” of final
inheritance and life (2 Cor. 5:5).

So, life is lived in this tension. Until the gift of the resurrection body,
one must be “home” somewhere and “away” from something. Currently,
Paul is “home in the body” and “away from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). If he had
to choose, he would rather be “away from the body” and “home with the
Lord,” something that he elsewhere describes as an existence that is “far
better” (Phil. 1:23). But this does not mean that the bodiless existence of
the soul is “our eternal home.” If one were going to specify the location of
our “eternal home,” the closest approximation would be where we are
now—in God’s creation! As creatures, this creation is rightly our home.
Spoiled by sin, however, the creation awaits renewal—our eternal home is
in need of renovation, purging, restoration. A Christian who dies most
certainly is, in some important sense, “at home with the Lord.” But at
death, the believer does not go to his or her eternal home—not yet...

Fifth: “This is not a funeral—it’s Craig’s victory celebration!” This is
perhaps the most objectionable of all—and it is patently false, as even
many unbelievers instinctively know. It is true, of course, that when a
Christian dies, he is now “out of danger”—he can no longer be tempted. In
addition, when tragic and prolonged physical or mental suffering precede
the death of a Christian, there can be great relief and release for both the
deceased and for those who loved him and have cared for him.

But who could even imagine saying that a funeral is a “victory” when
it’s the funeral of a child, or of a young mother, or of a colleague and friend
struck down in the midst of a vigorous and productive life? As a matter of
fact, the death even of a Christian is always and only a sign that sin has
not yet fully been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; the last enemy has
not yet gone under His feet. As a matter of fact, death (which does not
separate the deceased from the love of God in Christ) does separate the
deceased from those who love him. Funerals are not victory celebrations.
They are funerals. The grief is, in light of the Gospel, never grief without
hope (1 Thess. 4:13). But it is still, ever and rightly—grief. For only on the
Last Day will death be swallowed up in...victory (1 Cor. 15:54)."

Jeffrey A. Gibbs
Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals
CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 (vol 29, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2003.pdf

[Michael Slusser]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

From Scotusblog again:

Ceremonies for Justice Scalia

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral has been set for next Saturday; in the meantime, his body will lie in repose in the Supreme Court’s Great Hall, just outside the courtroom where he sat for three decades.   The Court’s bench in front of where Justice Scalia sat, and his high black chair, are now draped in black in his memory.

The public may visit the Great Hall on Friday from 10:30 a.m. until 8 p.m.  Prior to that time, there will be a private ceremony at the Court beginning at 9:30 a.m.

A funeral Mass will be celebrated at 11 a.m. Saturday at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, a massive Roman Catholic edifice in northeast Washington.   The Mass will be open to friends and family members, the Court said. He will be buried in a private ceremony at a gravesite not identified by the Court.

The non-attendance of everyone else appears to be a directed verdict.

Peace,
Michael

[James_Gale]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?

Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?

No, they're funerals.

"As a not-as-young pastor now in the early years of the twenty-first
century, I still hear at funerals things said about the dead Christian that
are not true. The problem is that I hear them said by the pastor, as part of
his sermon. These are things which, strictly speaking, are not true. More
importantly, these are things which, theologically speaking, are not true.
And so we ought not to say them. Because ultimately, statements such as
the ones highlighted below downplay the real meaning of death, and they
diminish the great hope of resurrection that is God’s answer in Christ to
the reality of death. The following are things that should not be said at
funerals...

Third: “John has gone to his eternal home.” This utterance contains
an echo of a Biblical way of speaking, but it is terribly misleading. In 2
Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is dealing with the prospect of death, the hope of
the resurrection body, and how these matters interrelate. His primary
hope concerns the resurrection body that will be given to him and to all
believers “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4;
cf. 1 Cor. 15:53f.). Until he puts on that dwelling, Paul and all believers
groan, along with the whole creation (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22-23). The gift
of the Holy Spirit, however, is the “bridge” between this mortal existence
and that immortal, resurrection life–the Spirit is the “guarantee” of final
inheritance and life (2 Cor. 5:5).

So, life is lived in this tension. Until the gift of the resurrection body,
one must be “home” somewhere and “away” from something. Currently,
Paul is “home in the body” and “away from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). If he had
to choose, he would rather be “away from the body” and “home with the
Lord,” something that he elsewhere describes as an existence that is “far
better” (Phil. 1:23). But this does not mean that the bodiless existence of
the soul is “our eternal home.” If one were going to specify the location of
our “eternal home,” the closest approximation would be where we are
now—in God’s creation! As creatures, this creation is rightly our home.
Spoiled by sin, however, the creation awaits renewal—our eternal home is
in need of renovation, purging, restoration. A Christian who dies most
certainly is, in some important sense, “at home with the Lord.” But at
death, the believer does not go to his or her eternal home—not yet...

Fifth: “This is not a funeral—it’s Craig’s victory celebration!” This is
perhaps the most objectionable of all—and it is patently false, as even
many unbelievers instinctively know. It is true, of course, that when a
Christian dies, he is now “out of danger”—he can no longer be tempted. In
addition, when tragic and prolonged physical or mental suffering precede
the death of a Christian, there can be great relief and release for both the
deceased and for those who loved him and have cared for him.

But who could even imagine saying that a funeral is a “victory” when
it’s the funeral of a child, or of a young mother, or of a colleague and friend
struck down in the midst of a vigorous and productive life? As a matter of
fact, the death even of a Christian is always and only a sign that sin has
not yet fully been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; the last enemy has
not yet gone under His feet. As a matter of fact, death (which does not
separate the deceased from the love of God in Christ) does separate the
deceased from those who love him. Funerals are not victory celebrations.
They are funerals. The grief is, in light of the Gospel, never grief without
hope (1 Thess. 4:13). But it is still, ever and rightly—grief. For only on the
Last Day will death be swallowed up in...victory (1 Cor. 15:54)."

Jeffrey A. Gibbs
Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals
CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 (vol 29, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2003.pdf

I get your point.  But the author oddly diminishes the focus on hope to nearly nothing, leaving nothing but despair-filled grief.  I would balance the two differently.  (And yes, the funeral for a 79-year-old such as Scalia is different in tone from the funeral of a child or young mother.)  We indeed live in the tension between now and not yet.  But the "not yet" is glorious indeed -- a hope and a victory to be celebrated.


In all events, I'll bet that the Scalia funeral places more emphasis on hope and celebration than you would prefer.

[Donald_Kirchner]

But the author oddly diminishes the focus on hope to nearly nothing, leaving nothing but despair-filled grief. 

Hardly. Gibbs always focuses on the victory on the Last Day. That's what he calls "true biblical hope," the physical resurrection. See his earlier article, "Regaining Biblical Hope: Restoring the Prominence
of the Parousia."

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2001 (vol 27, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2001.pdf

[James_Gale]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

From Scotusblog again:

Ceremonies for Justice Scalia

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral has been set for next Saturday; in the meantime, his body will lie in repose in the Supreme Court’s Great Hall, just outside the courtroom where he sat for three decades.   The Court’s bench in front of where Justice Scalia sat, and his high black chair, are now draped in black in his memory.

The public may visit the Great Hall on Friday from 10:30 a.m. until 8 p.m.  Prior to that time, there will be a private ceremony at the Court beginning at 9:30 a.m.

A funeral Mass will be celebrated at 11 a.m. Saturday at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, a massive Roman Catholic edifice in northeast Washington.   The Mass will be open to friends and family members, the Court said. He will be buried in a private ceremony at a gravesite not identified by the Court.

The non-attendance of everyone else appears to be a directed verdict.

Peace,
Michael

Maybe.  The announcement interestingly did not say that an invitation is required or that the funeral is closed to the public.  (By contrast, the family and Court made abundantly clear that the burial service would be private.)  My guess is that anyone who considers himself or herself a friend could attend.  As you know, the Basilica is huge.  I believe that it is the largest Catholic church in North America.  So space is not likely to be a limiting factor.

[Voelker]

This piece from GetReligion contains an interesting letter from Scalia concerning funerals, and especially funeral sermons. Well worth a read.

[James_Gale]

This piece from GetReligion contains an interesting letter from Scalia concerning funerals, and especially funeral sermons. Well worth a read.

Wonderful stuff. Thanks for sharing.

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

[George Erdner]

Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.

Fine. Then let the Senate they elected do its job, which is to consider the nominees the President sends them. If they don't like his nominee, they can reject him/her. Either way, the point is that, contrary to Senator McConnell's posturing, the American people have expressed their voice. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they should now be mute until after the next election.

[Charles Austin]

And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

[Matt Hummel]

And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.

[George Erdner]

Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.

Fine. Then let the Senate they elected do its job, which is to consider the nominees the President sends them. If they don't like his nominee, they can reject him/her. Either way, the point is that, contrary to Senator McConnell's posturing, the American people have expressed their voice. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they should now be mute until after the next election.

Rejecting unacceptable nominees is the Senate's job. As long as everyone remembers that the Senate has no obligation to automatically rubber stamp every nominee that the President submits, then I assume the Senate will do its job.

[FrPeters]

Good grief... it's all politics.  The Dems have no moral high ground for they did in the past and would today be saying the same things as the Repubs if the shoe were on the other foot and the Repubs would be expressing moral outrage just like the Dems at the idea of not filling the vacancy.  There are few men of principle left in Washington and Scalia was surely one of them when he was there -- stalwart yet friendly, eloquent yet readable, with invective for all fools.  It is a snub for the Pres not to attend the funeral (unless the family said not to) and it is a political opportunity to direct the court that the Pres will not miss.  Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing.