Columbarium Report
COLUMBARIUM TASK
FORCE
TO: The Vestry
The History and Role of the Columbarium Task Force Current members of the Task Force are Helen Head, Dick Rathmell, Lynne Lorrier, Bettie Cadden, Benny Lewis, John Burleson and Mo Littlefield (Chair). Some of the Task Force members were among those who formed voluntarily a group back in 1991 to assess the interest among parishioners in having a columbarium at R. E. Lee Memorial. Finding that considerable interest existed, they investigated columbaria at other churches. In 2004, much like the steeple and kitchen interest groups, the initial columbarium group became members of the Columbarium Advisory Group, a subcommittee to the Facilities Planning Committee, and assisted in planning the three-phase Resources For Mission Capital Campaign. In March 07, following the completion of the new steeple, the Vestry’s attention turned to other components supported by the capital campaign, i.e., the kitchen, the Parish House, and the columbarium. The Columbarium Task Force, formed from the former Columbarium Advisory Group, was given the initial charge to (1) reassess the level of current interest among the parish in having a columbarium at R. E. Lee Memorial, (2) research further the columbaria of other churches, (3) conduct a more thorough study of the possibilities for a columbarium at R. E. Lee Memorial, taking into account the limited space, cost and urgency, and (4) recommend to the Vestry the most feasible location for a columbarium. The Need and Promise RevisitedThe Task Force found that a number of parishioners have a strong desire for a columbarium of niches and a garden for the scattering of ashes. This became evident as early (1991) as the interest in replacing the steeple, improving the kitchen and renovating the Parish House. While quietly pursuing their aims with the fervent hope that it would become a reality in the near future, it was no happenstance that the Vestry approved the columbarium as a part of the current capital campaign, attesting the Vestry’s commitment to acknowledge those who have given so much of their time and talent in researching the possibilities, in honoring those who have in their possession ashes of their loved ones waiting to be inurned in a niche or scattered in a common garden at the church, and recognizing the nearly dozen others who have made known their interest in making similar arrangements for their future needs. The Task Force recognizes that many older members of the parish have made previous plans for their own burial elsewhere. Nevertheless, a significant number of others have not, a fact made evident by the eleven parishioners who to date have restricted their campaign gifts to the columbarium. That amount now totals $37,500, nearly two-thirds of which already has been collected. After several months’ research, the Task Force presented at the July 07 Vestry meeting three recommendations: (1) several options for both, a location of niches and a memorial garden, (2) policies governing the garden and the niches and (3) a standing committee to oversee the maintenance of the garden and niches and to ensure adherence to the policies. The Task Force was asked to report back at the August Vestry meeting with specific recommendations for the precise location of a memorial garden in the front of the church and niches in the nave. The Research, The Design, The CostOver the past years members of the current Task Force visited other church columbaria, discussed the nature of those columbaria with local clergy and staff, and more recently met with the architectural firm of Madison Spencer of Charlottesville. Mr. Spencer, a W & L alumnus with graduate degree from the University of Virginia, attended R. E. Lee Memorial Church as an undergraduate. A historian of architectural design, he has made a vast study of columbaria throughout this country and abroad, in addition to his primary architectural work in designing buildings. His colleague, Alex Richards, also a W & L alumnus who attended R. E. Lee Memorial as a student, works closely with Mr. Spencer to provide niches for columbaria. Both have visited R. E. Lee Memorial. To date Mr. Spencer has met with the Task Force pro bono on three separate occasions and in addition sent his staff to photograph and take accurate measurements while carefully studying the entire grounds, external and internal features of the church. In response to the research undertaken by the Task Force for the creation of a suitable and affordable location for a columbarium of niches and a garden area for the scattering of ashes, Mr. Spencer has produced drawings, sketches, photographs and three-dimensional mock-ups of niches and rendered valuable advice on creating a fitting memorial garden with a marker consistent with the historic architectural design of the church. The Commitment And The BlessingThe commitment of the Vestry has enabled the Task Force to complete its findings. In sharp contrast to other features of the church’s campaign (i.e., cost of construction, renovation and maintenance of the steeple and kitchen), a columbarium and a memorial garden will not be a financial short- or long-term burden for the church. On the contrary, it will completely pay for itself initially and in the future. The Task Force finds that those parishioners who now seek, and those in the future who will be seeking, the privilege of having the use of the columbarium or memorial garden will willingly contribute sufficiently to cover fully the cost of niches and the maintenance of a common scattering garden and will do so to the extent that it will help support the development of a trust fund to protect and preserve both in perpetuity. The Space Limitations ReassessedOne of the obvious obstacles facing the Task Force was that space for a columbarium or a memorial garden at R. E. Lee Memorial is very limited. There is no available space around the Parish Hall other than in front, which was approved by the Vestry in the initial three-phase capital campaign plans that called for lowering the walkway to the street level, thus forming the banks along the walkway for niches. However, the enormous cost of this option eliminated it when the campaign goal was reduced by two-thirds. Likewise, space on either side of the church is equally limited and is considerably less than that which might first appear in back of the church. It was recently learned that the W & L boundary line cuts through about halfway from east to west the fenced-in playground area used by the Yellow Brick Road immediately behind the church and encompasses nearly all the area inside the fence directly behind the Parish Hall. Moreover, to properly prepare the area behind the church for scattered ashes and to build a wall for niches that would lend architectural dignity to the church and the columbarium (and be tasteful in the eyes of neighboring W & L), extensive excavation and landscaping would be required. It would be a Herculean task alone just to relocate the HVAC system, currently a noisy interference in using that area. The best preliminary estimates are that as much as $100,000 -$150,000 would be required to do the job correctly and several years more to accumulate sufficient funds to make that option a reality. The Concluding ChallengeGiven the rising interest in having a columbarium, the initial and subsequent approval of the Vestry in making it a part of the capital campaign, the recent unanimous vote of the Vestry in favor of both a columbarium and memorial garden, and after thoroughly addressing all the aforementioned technical and logistical challenges, the Task Force has concluded that, upon the advice of architect Madison Spencer, a creative design for both a memorial garden and columbarium of niches can be tastefully, architecturally and financially accomplished soon. Furthermore, the vision of Mr. Spencer is that both can be created in such a manner that they would be hardly noticeable, certainly not as an intrusion, but rather appear as if they have always been a part of the church property since its initial construction. The Resulting Opportunity The Memorial Garden: The Task Force, based on the creative vision of the architect, proposes that a small memorial garden for the scattering of ashes will be very tastefully accomplished in the front of the church at the location of the St. Francis statue. With a minimal amount of landscaping, and the blessings of Mr. Jim Osborne, the benefactor of that area, the memorial garden will be developed in such a way as to remain perfectly fitting to the area while the addition of a memorial marker identifying those whose ashes are scattered will be designed and placed in such manner as to lend dignity to the historic architecture of the church and, again, appear as if it has always been there. The Niches: As in foreign lands and particularly in many historic churches in this country, niches are often located both throughout the exterior and interior of the church. Although research revealed that both the external and internal features of R. E. Lee provide options for the creative emplacement of niches, the inside of the church offers the most viable, affordable, tasteful and immediate option. After considerable study and feedback from parishioners, the Task Force proposes that the wall in the back of the nave under the front of the balcony between the rafters would be an attractive and fitting location for the initial placement of niches, as well as on the blank wall to the left of the balcony in the back of the church on the gospel side. The framing of the niches would be natural wood in the color and texture that matches the style of existing woodwork and the gothic design of the interior of the church. Niches would protrude from the wall about eleven inches and placed high enough not to impede the limited traffic flow in those areas. The Conclusion The proposed columbarium and memorial garden for R. E. Lee Memorial comes with the absolute commitment of the Task Force to preserve the integrity of our historic church in both form and function. The external garden and interior areas, as described above, would have the appearance of having been a part of the church since its early construction, which is the precise vision and commitment of the architect. The architect has agreed to be present at the next meeting of the Vestry to share his creative artistic vision in the form of drawings, photographs and three-dimensional mock-ups.
Respectfully submitted,
COLUMBARIUM TASK FORCE
TO: The
Vestry
The Columbarium Task Force understands that in any congregation, unanimity is almost unheard of and probably not very healthy in the first place. But with comity being at least one important ingredient of Christian toleration, it is a fundamental part of our faith that views of one be considered just as holy and righteous as views of another. The Task Force understands that important Christian principle and has, therefore, invited feedback from those who support the concept of a columbarium for our church as well as from any with contrary opinions. Indeed, all points of view are welcome and deserve to be fully addressed. However, given all the years of investigation since 1991 and as a result of its recent research, the Task Force asks only that its views and recommendations be given a fair and equal hearing by those of opposite opinions, as was done concerning the materials used in the restoration of the steeple and as now being addressed with the upcoming renovation of the Parish House and especially in the updating of the kitchen. To those ends, each parishioner, regardless of his views, surely should rise to the level of honoring the dictates of church canons by obediently leaving it to the Vestry to uphold their authority and obligation in exercising their faithful decision-making, and to do in their collective judgment what is not only fair and just to all but particularly what is in the best long-range interest of our beloved church. And, finally, may the parishioners, the Task Force members included, accept the decisions of the Vestry with respect if not enthusiasm as it addresses the specific location of a columbarium and memorial garden. Against this backdrop, the following issues were brought to the attention of the Task Force, which has responded in like manner as faithfully and as accurately as it could: 1. Why would anyone want their ashes scattered in a church garden or inurned on church property in the first place? The answer is simple. Recognizing that there are those who prefer to have their ashes scattered or inurned elsewhere, it is also realized that others who, having been baptized, confirmed, and married in the church, and with the church having remained a fundamental part of their life, quite naturally feel strongly that their mortal remains should be with the church. Witness the great number of churches in this country surrounded by cemeteries and columbaria. Indeed, from birth through death is how the church is viewed by those who seek to have their ashes scattered or inurned on church property. 2. How many parishioners would likely take advantage of the opportunity to have their ashes a part of their church? Currently, there are some with ashes in hand of their loved ones waiting to be scattered in the memorial garden. There are a total of a dozen or so more who have expressed genuine interest in having that opportunity in the future. It is projected that there could be as many as two dozen individuals over the next five to ten years who will make arrangements to be included. 3. Would not having a scattering garden located at the St. Francis area be viewed as “holy ground” where children always have been, and inevitably always be, playing, therefore inviting adult parishioners to constantly admonish the young to avoid that area? The view of those who desire their ashes, and those of their loved ones, to be scattered in the memorial garden ascribe to the biblical thesis of “ashes to ashes and dust to dust,” therefore, they willingly accept that there will be children playing in the area, indeed invite it, let alone adults stepping into the garden to maintain it (as with any cemetery). Obviously, anyone who feels that their ashes deserved to be spread in a “holy garden” so preserved and, therefore, essentially off-limits, would be informed in advance of the nature of the church’s memorial garden. As for ashes inurned in the nave of the church, in addition to the aforementioned reason for having one’s remains with their place of worship, it provides an appropriate opportunity for family and friends to reverently pay respects to deceased loved ones whose closeness to the church has been an important part of their lives. 4. What about possible disturbance of the memorial garden area by college students and other sources of possible vandalism? In the first place the minimal landscaping or more frequent upkeep of the St. Francis Garden would not result in a substantially noticeable change from its current appearance. There would be no obvious indication of the scattering of ashes. The clear intent of the memorial garden is that it would be a natural fit, environmentally sound, and subtle, clearly not an intrusion in appearance or in any other way. Instead, there would be no noticeable change from present appearance. Not only would the location, style and design of a memorial marker be such that it would not invite vandalism more than any current feature in the front of the church, but be consistent with the architectural integrity of the church. The sketches and drawings of the architect will attest to the tastefulness of the design and the matching of the architectural integrity of the church facade so not be viewed as an intrusion or even a recent addition. 5. At a memorial service involving the scattering of ashes, would not the passing vehicles and walking traffic be a serious interference? There is of course that possibility, but those interested in having their ashes scattered would work with the Rector in choosing a time when there is less likelihood of interference yet would be prepared to accept the consequences of possible interruption. 6. What about the comfort level of those who choose to sit on the wall in front of the St. Francis Garden knowing that ashes of the deceased are scattered behind them? That clearly depends upon the views of those who, for example, have a problem sitting on a bench in or near a cemetery. Admittedly, some people seem to get an eerie or squeamish feeling about walking through a cemetery, let alone a columbarium. Clearly, others do not. They instead seek the opportunity for reverent reflection by paying their respects to the deceased especially inurned at the church of their faith, and not just on Memorial Day or All Saint’s Day. Many find a cemetery or columbarium a place of peacefulness, comfort, reflection, realizing and fully accepting that death, as sad as it may be most of the time, is a fundamental and natural, necessary part of life’s experience. Nevertheless it may be well for the church to try and accommodate those parishioners who feel awkward in sitting on the wall in front of a memorial garden, perhaps by creating an alternative sitting area as the ultimate resolve. The Task Force will take this matter under advisement. 7. Would it not feel to some like walking through a cemetery to get into the church or be sitting in the middle of a cemetery if niches are in the nave? There should be little reason for such feelings by anyone. After all, there would be no obvious evidence of scattered ashes in the memorial garden. The appearance of the St. Francis garden would not change other than from being better maintained. Any niches in the nave of the church, especially under the balcony, would have the appearance of belonging there, no more of an intrusion than the two large plaques that now exist on the sidewalls of the church. The key to comfort and satisfaction is first to view the drawings and sketches provided by the architect rather than coming to an instinctive or precipitous conclusion based purely on one’s imagination of unpleasantness. Furthermore, the columbarium of niches likely would exist void of ashes for a considerable period of time, since those currently possessing ashes of their loved ones have more interest in the memorial garden, giving everyone a chance to view firsthand that the niches, although a recent edifice, will appear as if they were a part of the church when it was built. 8. Would not an obligatory fence around the memorial garden become a problem? The Task Force recommendation is that there be no fence, that the current area be preserved in its current state but better maintained than in the recent past. 9. Would there not be stringent requirements beyond the church’s capacity to maintain the memorial garden area properly? No. First, the memorial garden of scattered ashes and the columbarium of niches would be financially self-sustaining from the contributions of those who seek to participate. Secondly, after consulting with the city manager, the city attorney, the zoning authorities, and the health officials, the Task Force found no codes, ordinances, or rules that dictate the manner of maintaining a memorial garden for the scattering of ashes. 10.Would not those who “have a stake” in the memorial garden by virtue of making use of it be apt to place increasing, yet conflicting, demands on the plantings and form and type of maintenance? The Task Force has recommended to the Vestry the appointment of a standing Columbarium Committee and also has proposed a set of policies, the first to oversee the maintenance and upkeep of the garden and the columbarium of niches and, the second, to make certain that the standard set of approved policies are enforced. Such policies would govern the use and maintenance of the garden and niches and establish the level of financial contribution from participants to assure that there would be no financial burden on the church. 11.What would be the reaction of the wider community to having a memorial garden of scattered ashes in such a public place? Of course, whenever a church, or any other entity of the community for that matter, undertakes something that has not been a long-standing or customary local tradition, it could be newsworthy, perhaps lead to some sort of public backlash. However, the Task Force does not envision any community-wide negative reaction for three reasons. First any modifications made to the area will be ever so slight that it would not be significant enough to draw public attention. Secondly, cremation and the scattering of ashes is becoming more of a trend. Thirdly, space in the community cemetery is very limited. Indeed it is predictable that other churches in the community over time are more apt to follow suit than for R. E. Lee to experience public dismay. 12.What are the health risk and what about bone fragments being a part of the scattered ashes? The Task Force has conferred with local health officials and has even communicated with the communicable disease center at the University of Virginia, and has the assurance that there are no known health risks from the scattering of cremated ashes. Furthermore, the policies governing the memorial garden at R. E. Lee will specify that cremated ashes must be completely pulverized, the usual treatment of cremated remains. The ashes would almost immediately disappear following a scattering. 13.Would not a memorial garden for cremated ashes require a dramatic altering of the St. Francis Garden area? Absolutely not. As stated previously in the Task Force report, whatever altering would be needed in the form of appropriate landscaping, or modifications in any structural sense, would be sufficiently insignificant as not to be obvious to the casual observer. Again, the commitment of the Task Force and its architect is to keep the St. Francis Garden very much intact the way it is now but with better care and maintenance. 14.Has the Task Force considered other options for a memorial garden, for example the area around the corner of the left side of the front of the church? Yes, the Task Force, along with the architect, carefully combed the entire area surrounding the church. The area immediately around the front left corner of the church on the W&L side is more open to interference of passers-by than the St. Francis garden area. In addition to other features, the enthusiastic blessings of Jim Osborne to turn the current garden into a more meaningful memorial to his deceased spouse gave considerable credence for selecting that particular area. 15.What about notifying the entire parish of the columbarium and the plans for niches and the memorial garden? The most recent Cross and Crown (August) once again reported on the establishment of the Columbarium, followed by announcements in the Weekly Bulletins. Future announcements naming the Standing Committee, outlining the policies and required level of financial contributions for participants will be forthcoming once the appointments and the precise dollar amounts (which in part may be tax deductible) of required gifts levels are established. 16.Why should anyone be concerned about establishing a columbium at their place of worship? Well, it is something new to this church even though it is traditional with many Episcopal and other churches, witness when driving through the countryside. Moreover it appears that some do not agree that cremation is proper or appropriate and obviously have no interest in the process for themselves or for their loved ones and, perhaps feel that all others should be of like-mind. Furthermore, some do not view cremation as a trend nor are aware of the scarcity of space in the local cemetery. Finally, the few who have expressed concern have already made their burial or cremation plans elsewhere and feel that others should do the same regardless of the feelings of those who prefer their ashes to be as much a part of the church as their lives. The Task Force, in all objectivity and faithful consideration, feels unanimously that to deny those who urgently desire to have their lasting remains a part of their house of worship would be tantamount to denying them full participation in the church while living. Admittedly, the Task Force recognizes that not all will agree with its recommendation, any more than all agreed on conducting the capital campaign, the type of materials used for the new steeple or, indeed, how the kitchen is being renovated. Nevertheless, regardless of the financial or spiritual features mentioned above, the almost complete subtlety of the small section of the St. Francis Garden for the scattering of ashes and the equally subtle niches under the balcony or on the blank wall to the left of the balcony, the fact is that neither will be noticeable to the casual observer and hardly noticeable to those few who might now object. 17.How come, when the columbarium was first approved by the Vestry two years ago to be a part of the capital campaign, no one objected then? Good question. Perhaps those who might now object were the same ones who were opposed to the church’s launching of the capital campaign in the first place. Or perhaps they felt there would be no contributions restricted to a columbarium and, therefore, it would become a non-issue. Perhaps some simply gave little attention to the matter until now. For example, some parishioners chose to delay participating in the church’s capital campaign ostensibly because they wanted to wait until it was certain the kitchen was going to be renovated, while others chose to wait until a new Rector was a certainty. In contrast, those in support of the columbarium chose to proceed on good faith and became among the first to make their pledge to the campaign. To date a total of eleven parishioners have pledged a combined amount of $37,500 to the columbarium and memorial garden, with some of them also having pledged to the kitchen.
Respectfully submitted, The Columbarium Task Force |