Funny Things at the crem'

I think people are quite shocked at the thought of anything to do with a funeral being funny, but often there is something or other that makes for a bit of light relief and brings a bit of (unintended) laughter into the proceedings.

Some of this year's highlight's include these five:

The couple who (sitting quite centrally in the Crem') were trying to talk to each other without being noticed as the welcome was under way. After the hymn and the readings one of the family got up to say something and they began talking in a much more animated fashion and then got up and left! When I came out of the Crem' after the service they were sitting on the bench outside. Seems that they'd got the time wrong and had arrived an hour early (just as we were going in) and rushed in with them thinking it was their service.

The 'Mexican wave' service where the people on the front row sat down and seeing this, so this many of the others. Someone on the front row realised people were standing and stood up again, those who were sitting got up and those who were still up were just beginning to sit. This was repeated a couple more times and a new record of the person on the from sitting and standing six times before we got underway was set! Don't think that's going to be a record easily broken :)

An excellent, and hitherto unseen, attraction was the lady who sat on the front row fiddling with her umbrella. We were just into the committal (ashes to ashes bit) when there was an audible click (made all the louder by the fact it came in the gap before 'dust to dust') and one of the most colourful (and biggest) golf umbrellas appeared!

The person who stood up to pay tribute to the dearly departed and as they did lost their top set of dentures into the lap of a lady on the front row, rushed round, retrieved than and carried on as if nothing had happened. What a trouper!

And my favourite, thus far: The toddler who walked up during the Nunc' and disappeared behind the curtains that now concealed the coffin. The child was oblivious to the panic caused as they spent a final few moments with their great grandparent behind the curtain, but I was nearly killed in the stampede to retrieve them. Funny thing was, it only took one person to go and get them but in the end there were five people (and a toddler, now screaming in response to the panic in the adults) standing behind me to help me do the blessing!

Who ever said funerals were always the same :)

Happy Friday people

How can they believe?

In the run up to this Sunday when the seed will be scattered on various soils, I thought today's morning office NT reading (Romans 10.11-end) was a most excellent signpost on the way and perhaps (yet another) remedy to those who who support the all/no road lead to God universalism and a spur for us to tell others of the salvation that comes through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross:

The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for
‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.’
Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
‘I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.’
Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
‘I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.’
But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.’

"How can they call on the one in whom they have not believed?
If they haven't heard, they they need to be told!"

Lord, send us into the places where you are perceived not to be,
To speak to those who have never heard,
To speak release from captivity to sin,
To speak acceptance in a world of rejection,
To bring trust into lives of deceit.
help us to preach your word in and out of season,
Without favour or partiality,
That your will may be seen and done in the lives of all.
Amen.

Pax

Christian Gene isolated!

Have to love this one - enjoy

(thanks to those who sent me the link)

A message to UCC

From the Church of England's liturgical vaults for the Third Sunday after Trinity (this Sunday):

The Collect

Almighty God, you have broken the tyranny of sin
and have sent the Spirit of your Son into our hearts whereby we call you Father:
give us grace to dedicate our freedom to your service,
that we and all creation may be brought to the glorious liberty of the children of God;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Post Communion

O God, whose beauty is beyond our imagining
and whose power we cannot comprehend:
show us your glory as far as we can grasp it,
and shield us from knowing more than we can bear
until we may look upon you without fear;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

No more GodFather!

I see the United Church of Christ (AKA Obama's church) has decided to drop references to God and the word 'Father'! No more 'God the father, heavenly father, father God' or the like because "it's too restrictive!"[read it here]

The move would have them bill themselves as:

"A Local Church is composed of persons who, believing in the triune God, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and depending on the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

STRIKE the First!
"In the UCC, our language for God, Christ and the Holy Spirit … is preferred to be more open for different expressions of the Trinity," she said. "Heavenly Father is just one vision. The denomination seeks to be "inclusive" in its language, so therefore we will tend to change language that is more traditional to be more inclusive."

How on earth can you believe in a triune God and deny one of the three persons in it?

Strike the Second
A spokeswoman says that, Some of the denomination's pastors refer to God with terms such as "Creator" and "Father and Mother."

This is taking us down the same old 'Creator, Redeemer, Enabler' tosh that seeks to remove anything masculine from the equation and adds nothing but takes much away.

Strike the Third
Apparently the UCC are one of leaders when it comes to declining church and it seems to me that this is a desperate act to win those who would like their Christianity to fit their demands. Too many churches see the only path to survival as being that of selling out the tradition Christian beliefs and practices in the hope that looking more like the world they will come in. The problem is that whilst many seek to have their ears tickled there is little point in coming into a place that is no different from the world outside.

Seems to me that this is a declining church who is seeking to sell itself to the world rather than stand and be different from it in the hope it will bring people in. The problem is that Church is about who we worship and serve not how many we can attract. This is the reason the liberal end fails to attract much in terms of converts and grows only as a container for like-minded sorts who leave other (often traditional) churches.

Two choices:
Call people to follow Christ, be different with regard to the world, and bless God
or
Call people to 'be themselves' and expect God to bless them.

As St Dumbledore of Hogwarts succinctly put it:

"The time is coming when you will have to choose between what is right and what is easy!"

Seems UCC are taking the easy route!

Sad

Crematoria Cowboys

It is interesting that Ruth Gledhill referred to 'Crematoria Cowboys' in her 2008 piece in the Times, for this is a problem that appears to not only be always with us, but is also, if my recent experiences are anything to go on, on the increase.

When I was training we had a local crematorium where three retired clergy had set themselves up with 'duty days' so that, in the case of local clergy not being available, they would do the service. Now this was quite popular with the local dog-collars because they didn't have to rush about doing services for people they didn't know and they maintained their own round of visits and stuff without the added burden of more work!

Many of the local undertakers knew that if there was no relationship with a local church they could could turn to one of the three ministers and they would be sorted.

Then the diocese sent out a letter to local clergy telling them that they were missing a pastoral opportunity at a church level and the fees were being missed at a church level so they should take every funeral that came their way. Undertakers were asked to route funerals to the nearest church to the deceased should there be no prior relationship and they wished to have a 'church' service.

This touched me at a number of levels:

1. A funeral is an opportunity for a very special pastoral engagement and viewing it as just 'work' was a sad reflection on the attitude of some of those with dog-collars,

2. I was impressed that the three old geezers were offering a service (in every sense) to the community and to their colleagues,

3. I was saddened that despite the pastoral wording, the emphasis appeared to be that the diocese was losing income!

Where I am we have a few people springing up, offering themselves for funerals, in a number of guises and forms. We have:

i. The person who is billing himself as a 'military' chaplain in order to do services for those who have served in one of the three branches of our armed forces,

2. We have those who belong to weird and wonderful denominations ie. the free and independent Anglican Episcopalian Reformed Church (I made the name up - don't want to upset just one group do I?) and are taking services which are billed as CofE at the Crem,

3. The rise in humanist (or 'non-religious') 'ministers' (seems to me that 'humanist minister' is an oxymoron!) appears to be driven by the customers saying they aren't religious! Once that's said it seems that some undertakers offer a 'humanist' (with all that doesn't perhaps offer) to suit their clients needs. I have asked some people who had humanist ministers do a funeral service for a member of their family and found that they didn't specifically ask for a humanist but merely said they 'weren't religious' and the rest just sort of happened.

One staff member of a funeral company about an hour away from me told me that they used some people on a 'booking fee' basis. What this meant was, in this cash-strapped age, that the funeral director took a percentage of the minister's fee for providing the booking. With the number of FDs going to the wall I can understand that any revenue stream is welcome, but I'm not sure this is totally ethical or efficacious and regarding fees and the CofE might mean less services for CofE clergy!

Then we have the diocesan money people, I bet they are most unchuffed at the thought of independent ministers and humanists getting the business, but this is perhaps more fiscal that theological or pastoral?

Considering the fact that the CofE relies so heavily upon retired clergy, I am always saddened when we start talking about restricting fees or taking percentages from them (although of course them offering percentages would be nice) but we shouldn't muzzle the ox that treads the grain, should we?

As for the others - bumped into a freelance dog-collar who was offering prayer and taking 'donations' in a place they had no right to be and when I appeared (looking official) they pretty much legged it! Seems that there is money to be made from funerals and some aren't shy in taking it!

How very mercenary and sad :(

Church Fees - Proper Perspective

I'm trying to make sense of the changes to fees that the measure passed in May will make and despite the fact that some claim that the CofE is still a cheap place for weddings, seems to me that the majority are thinking that what we have before us is a negative step.

One view:
"We have always scrupulously stuck to the statutory fee, plus £25 for a verger, and adding a small amount for heating in the winter months, the new wedding fee will represent a huge hike for us. At the moment the basic charge before organ, choir etc. is £312.50, so it will be a big leap up to £425. I am very concerned about the fact that this will come in in Jan 2012. We already have six weddings booked for next year - couples often book well over a year in advance. I always warn them that the fees go up a bit in Jan each year and that the fee is that payable at the time of the wedding not at the time of booking - couples are quite happy with this, since it has never gone up by more than about £10. There is no way I am going to be charging those who have already booked (and in some cases paid), an extra sum of over £100 for their wedding, though - it seems to me to be blatantly unfair and unreasonable."

I note that one of the Wedding magazines puts the estimated average cost of a wedding for 2011 at something approaching £19,000:

This leads many to make the observation that even if the cost of the church wedding was £600, this would be small beer when considered in the overall figures (I see the magazine sets the cost at £520)

The reality is that many of the couples I have met spend around two thousand pounds for the wedding and all that it involves and where I am, the last wedding we did saw the money for the service donated by members and the church did the catering whilst another got his Dad's vintage car and chauffeured the couple round town whilst we changed the building into a venue for the reception. Mind you, I did one a few years back where they had a crystal coach and a £5k reception in a package that (Mum proudly informed me) was going to cost about £20k! Sadly, the repayments will be going on for longer than the wedding as I understand they split last year :(

Clayboy makes for interesting reading on the subject of the fees issue.

I'd be grateful for any other links on the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure 2011 and of the ways that this affects churches and how the diocesan money managers are going to implement this.

I hear horror stories of fees being paid directly to the diocese and the like but beyond the froth there seems to be little substance at the moment. In the text I actually see some good things (no funeral cost for those sixteen years and below and the opportunity to waive wedding fees in cases of pecuniary disadvantage - I like that term :) ).

So please, tell me the realities . . .

Pax

Church Fees - background reading

This piece was suggested by someone who left a comment as something of interest in the fees debate, so here it is:

Church sounds death knell for ‘ash cash’
Ruth Gledhill - The Times - 22Jan 2008

The Church of England is taking steps to ban “ash cash” payments to clergy for taking funerals at churches and crematoria.

Instead, the money will go direct to dioceses. The move will stamp out the “crematoria cowboys”, clergy who supplement meagre or non-existent incomes by conducting dozens of crematorium funerals at £96 a time.

At its meeting next month in Westminster, the General Synod will debate switching the “incumbent’s fee” for pastoral services to a fee payable direct to the diocesan board of finance.

The Church will also set fees for the first time for other services that have grown sharply in recent years, such as memorial services and the “service of blessing” that often follows a civil marriage. Fees for funerals for children under the age of 16 are to be abolished, as are the £34 fees for the reading of wedding banns in church.

The proposals are set out in a report, Four Funerals and a Wedding, which takes its title from statistics showing that in 2005, Church of England ministers conducted 207,200 funerals and 57,200 weddings. The fees that clergy can charge for weddings and funerals are fixed by the Archbishops’ Council, the Church’s policy body. Every person in England is legally entitled to a wedding and funeral in the parish in which they live. Clergy can charge £120 for a weddding, £36 for a burial of remains, £51 for a funeral and £96 for a service at a crematorium.

In 2002, the most recent year for which full figures are available, fees raised more than £37 million for the Church. Of this, £14 million went towards paying stipends — about one twelfth of the total stipend bill of £180 million — and the remainder went to parishes. The new fees for “ministry”, as they will be styled, will be higher because they will contribute towards training for clergy as well as stipends.

More than nine in ten serving clergy donate their fees direct to their diocese. The few who keep them have the amount deducted from the following year’s stipend.

With declining clergy numbers, dioceses depend on retired clergy to keep pace with the number of funerals. Most dioceses have allowed retired clergy to keep a proportion, such as two thirds, of the fees.

The report says that there is evidence of “leakage” of fees that should be used to contribute to stipends. Most clergy set up good systems to manage the fees, but there have been cases of clergy getting into “financial difficulty” through failing to pass on the fees.

Tax inspectors are known to be unhappy about funeral directors who make cash payments direct to individual clergy, according to the report.

It says: “Tales abound, usually anecdotal and some certainly apocryphal, about ministers who operate outside the system and allegedly make a fortune as freelance purveyors of funeral and other services while apparently ministering under the auspices of the Church of England.”

Retired and non-stipendiary clergy will, under the new rules, be able to apply for a “retainer” based on how many funerals and weddings they conduct: a priest who carried out 71 to 80 a year could be granted a stipend of £5,500. Up to ten weddings and funerals would net a mere £600. The report says these services represent “some of the Church of England’s main opportunities for pastoral mission.”

The Ven Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire and the prolocuter of the Synod’s House of Clergy for Canterbury province, said that some would see the moves as a further step in breaking down the concept of clergy freehold, where the incumbent priest “owns” the benefice.

There would be concerns that the parish priest would be cut out of the process and the pastoral needs of families overlooked were undertakers dealing directly with dioceses, he said, adding: “Most retired clergy behave responsibly. It could be that there is the occasional person — what is known as a crematorium cowboy — who might have his wings clipped by this.”

— “They’ve got a nerve,” said the Rev Chris Horseman when The Times told him that funeral fees would be paid direct to dioceses.

Mr Horseman, who conducts 250 funerals a year, recently set up Rent-a-Rev, a business specialising in funeral and wedding services.

This month he resigned his licence to minister as a priest in the Church after he was told he was in breach of Canon Law for services that did not conform with church liturgy. He said the new rules would not affect him. “The Church does not have the right to dictate who should be paid for a funeral,” he said.