I know it is rare to have a theological excursion on BRITARCH, but my
understanding of the Anglican position is that human remains have
little or no importance - indeed the BCP states in that famous passage,
' we therefore commit his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to
ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to
eternal life....' We do not accept the doctrine where at some future
date the soul and body become physically reunited, and indeed it is the
destruction of the corporal remains which distinguishes the life of
soul of departed. I am sure many who have dealt with the CoE will agree
that there is little or no interest in human remains, and only a
sentimental concern about their uncovering and removal.
Of course this view is confined to the CoE - who are of course the
Established church, and the successor to the pre-reformation church.
there may be some burials in the London collection that come from other
sources (Non-conformist, Roman Catholic, Jewish (?) etc.) where a
different position might be taken. I can see no 'moral' argument here
from the Museum of London, just sentimental and ill informed political
Perhaps the Barton-on-Humber solution might be employed, where the
bones, having been studied at Bristol, are now stored in their original
boxes etc, in a redundant, but still consecrated church. Might there
not be a redundant church in London ready for a such a purpose?
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 09:53 pm, R & H Jaeschke wrote:
> Considering how many churchyards have been "excavated", emptied or just
> plain bulldozed in advance of new profit-making buildings, where are
> skeletal remains supposed to be re-interred ? And isn't "giving them a
> decent Christian reburial" really just a fancy name for landfill ?
> Start a petition Chris, I'm right behind you.
> Helena Jaeschke
> Archaeological conservator