Christmas talk ideas / resources etc. (repost)

 Here's a list of some old ideas, videos, all age talks etc. which I might add to / update. Your ideas most welcome! https://marclloyd.blogspot.com/2013/12/christmas-talk-ideas-gimmicks-sermons.html

December and Christmas Services 2021

 https://www.warbletonchurch.org.uk/december-christmas-2021/

Tim Chester, Fixated - introduction

 

Fixated: Advent Meditations from the Book of Hebrews

Tim Chester

10 of those, 2020 ISBN: 9781913278953 73pp

https://www.10ofthose.com/uk/products/26683/fixated

 

What things might you be said to be fixated on / engrossed by / obsessed with?

What are your first thoughts when you wake up?

Or your day dreams?

What are you distracted by?

 

What do you consciously devote your time and energies to?

What do you pursue?

How would an independent outside observer with access to a video of all your life (your mobile phone and your bank account) assess these things?

 

How’s your celebration of Christmas?

In what ways is Jesus involved? Or side-lined?

 

Introduction

 

Do you have Christian heroes who inspire you to wholehearted devotion to Jesus? Who? How?

(Maybe you should think about reading some Christian history or biographies – see e.g. https://www.10ofthose.com/uk/products/christian-life/biography)

 

What do you find helps or hinders your devotion to Jesus and your keeping going in the Christian life?

 

Key Bible verses: Hebrews 12:1-3 (Suitable for memorisation?)

 

Song: By Faith We See The Hand of God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYiZRj0FbA

 

Do you feel like you’re consciously, actively running the Christian race?

What sort of pace do you feel you are going at? Why?

 

Are your thoughts fixed on Jesus? (Hebrews 3:1)

How could we increasingly fix them there? Or help one another to do so?

 

On the secular

 A while ago I wrote in defence of something like a qualified sacred secular divide. In Bible terms, there is temple / garden, land and world. There is the holy and the common, the special and the general. Both of which matter. We live for Jesus in the church and in the world. There is special gathered covenant renewal corporate public worship and there is worshiping Jesus in your own quiet time, by doing the dishes, closing that deal, driving the kids to football, playing the drums and so on. 

The word secular is an interesting one. 

Around 1300, it referred to so-called "secular" rather than "religious" clergy. This almost seems nonsense to modern ears, but it referred to the regular parish clergy who lived in the world rather than in monasteries. 

In this sense, the Reformation did wonders to establish the holiness of the "secular" world. The family and home and work were just as good as the convent - in fact, better, because God meant this world and full engagement with it for his glory. (This is the anti-secular sacred divide point again, and it is well made).

But today the word "secular" tends to mean non-religious. 

In this sense, secular life is both impossible and undesirable. 

Impossible, because even atheists have a kind of religion in the sense of a code of ethics, a highest principle, a "god". It is naïve to think that there can be some space carved out that is immune from ultimate commitments. In the public square, some god will reign supreme (Freedom, Tolerance, Nation, Security, Prosperity, The Man of Power, maybe) or the gods will do battle. There is no neutrality and we ought to wake up to that. 

And the "secular" is also undesirable. If Jesus Christ is Lord and he is good he is Lord of all and Lord of all of life including so called secular education and government. 

Kuyper's famous line in his speech opening the Free University in 1880, was right:, “There’s not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is Lord over all, does not exclaim, ‘Mine’!”

The universe is a theocracy, in the sense that it is ruled by God. Imagine 99.99999% of a nation were Bible believing Christians. They might make all sorts of careful provisions for minority rights, but it would seem foolish that in their legislature they should suspend belief in reality. 

This Christian theocracy, which is a fact, does not mean the rule of clerics. The church and the state are ordained by God as distinct spheres. This is not the pastor for PM nor the King preaching sermons. But the "secular" ruler should of course read his Bible and listen to the Vicar. He will seek godly counsel as he seeks to make laws for the good of all his subjects. 

Alfred the Great was on to something when he pre-fixed the Ten Commandments to his legal code. The Americans are right to think of their nation as "under God", even if they are a little confused about what that might look like in practice. 

Or maybe we could learn lessons from the people of Ireland:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
		We, the people of Éire,
		Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
		Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
		And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
		Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Tim Stanley, Whatever Happened To Tradition?

 

I reckon Tim Stanley's Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, belonging and the future of the West (Bloomsbury, 2021) could be a good read. He says, "Tradition is not just a pretty thing, much less dead or to be curated - it is the past brought to life, guiding us through the present, offering us a roadmap to the future" (1). He says that - a former Marxist - for a long time he was lost. "My embrace of religion, plugging me into a ready-made community and giving me something to live for other than myself, lifted me out of the doldrums.... tradition can be useful to those looking for ballast, which I think a lot of us are." (8) Tradition has a "fidelity to history" that "rather than tear things up" aims to refine and improve (9). "As Gustav Mahler is supposed to have said, tradition 'is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.'" (9) https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/whatever-happened-to-tradition-9781472974129/





BLOOMSBURY.COM

Whatever Happened to Tradition?
The West feels lost. Brexit, Trump, the coronavirus: we hurtle from one crisis to another, lacking definition, terrified that our best days are behind us. The c…

The Queen, Jesus and the Christian Faith

I’m a sentimental Welshman. But I confess to being quite a committed monarchist.

I sang the national anthem at the Remembrance service last week with more than the usual feeling.

Many of us have been praying for Her Majesty The Queen during her recent illnesses and struggles.

Whether or not you’re republican, we might all admit that the Queen’s 69 year reign has been the most remarkable record of public service.

Much of that has been the product of her own personal Christian faith.

The Queen has been such a good monarch because she has kept the example of King Jesus before her.

There was a good little booklet produced to mark the Queen’s 90^th birthday in 2016 and it was appropriately titled: The Servant Queen and the King She Serves

The Servant Queen and the King She Serves

One senior Vatican official has called the Queen “The Last Christian Monarch”.

We confidently pray that it will not be so, of course!

 

And today is the Feast of Christ the King.

 

I’ve sometimes thought that the Queen has been the nation’s most influential preacher.

She wasn’t able to attend the new General Synod this week but Prince Edward read a message on her behalf.

Some of my friends who were there said it was the best bit of the whole Synod!

She said:

“None of us can slow the passage of time; and while we often focus on all that has changed in the intervening years, much remains unchanged, including the Gospel of Christ and his teachings.”

 ‘The list of tasks facing that face General Synod may sound familiar to many of you… but one stands out supreme: “to bring the people of this country to the knowledge and the love of God”

It’s useful, isn’t it, to be remined by our Supreme Governor, what the Church of England is for:

The unchanging Gospel of Christ and his teachings:

Bringing to the people of this country the knowledge and love of God.

 

Of course we care for our buildings.

And there is much good we can do in our communities.

But we do it all in the name of Christ and with the good news about him on our lips.

 

In her Christmas message, the Queen has frequently spoken of Jesus as her “inspiration” and “role-model”, as the anchor of her life”, and of the strength she draws daily from putting her “trust in God” and “from the message of hope in the Christian gospel”.

She knows Jesus not only as her example, but as her “Saviour with the power to forgive.”

The Queen has said that she is sustained by the prayers of her people and that at Christmas she prays for us that we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Jesus Christ.

 

So there is much that we could say to liken the reign of her majesty to the reign of Christ her King.

But we must also say something by way of contrast.

 

cf. Daniel 7 - The everlasting sovereign power of Christ

A God-given Kingdom - cf. The Divine Right of Kings?! - "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." 

 The orb under the cross is a symbol that all the kings of the earth must bow to King Jesus 

 

cf. John 18 - A Kingdom not from this world

 Contrast Pilate / Caesar and Christ - who is the true judge, saviour, Son of God, King of Kings etc.?

Jesus' preaching of Good news of the Kingdom which calls for repentance of faith 

(Good news - of the birth of a new king, of the victory of a king in battle - which makes all the difference for the people who will receive them)

  

* * *

 

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/get-involved/the-servant-queen-and-the-king-she-serves/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/24/queens-christmas-message-article-of-christian-faith

 

It would be nice to have an up to date anthology of all Her Majesty’s references to Jesus and Christianity. Does anyone know of one?

Individual Cups at Holy Communion in the Church of England

Jesus' command, "Drink ye all of it [the Communion cup]" (Matthew 26:27) seems clear enough. And Article 30 of the Church of England's 39 Articles states: "Of both Kinds. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." The Sacrament Act of 1547 similarly says: "within this Churche of Englande and Irelande and other the Kings Dominions, under bothe the Kyndes, that is to saie of breade and wyne, excepte necessitie otherwise require:" (Emphasis added)

There is an on-going discussion within the C of E about the legality and suitability of individual cups at Holy Communion. 

I would be grateful to be pointed to significant information and resources on this. 

From an Evangelical point of view, Thomas Renz (see also https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/search/label/Holy%20Communion) and Ian Paul and Andrew Atherstone have been writing about this. 

There is some discussion in Law & Religion UK https://lawandreligionuk.com/2021/03/18/coronavirus-and-ecclesiastical-law-ii/#Individual%20cups

The latest Coronavirus guidance on Holy Communion is relevant. 

The Church of England legal advisor commission has called individual cups unlawful.  (January 1991, revised September 2003)

But other lawyers have challenged this legal opinion. 

The House of Bishops has discussed the matter at some length. Sadly the Church of England legal commission has not so far published all its legal advice in full. 

Individual Bishops have written to their clergy. Practice on the ground varies. Some have adopted individual cups, No action has been taken against them, though I'm told some bishops have frowned. There has been talk of health issues and insurance, even. It is not clear what could be done to stop an incumbent using individual cups as matters of ritual are notoriously hard to prosecute. It seems unlikely any bishop would want to try. 

And the matter has now been treated in Questions at General Synod a number of times:

In  General Synod in July 2020, Mrs Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford) to asked the Chair of the House of Bishops: “Will the House of Bishops reconsider the prohibition of use of small individual cups as a valid ‘common sense’ pro tem way of sharing the Communion wine while current constraints remain? [Q.68]. In response, The Bishop of London replied on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:

“[A.68] The Legal Advisory Commission has stated “it is contrary to law for individual cups to be used for each communicant” and that “the doctrine of necessity cannot be appealed to in order to justify the use of individual cups even in circumstances where there is a fear of contagion from the use of a common cup. … the Sacrament Act 1547 makes provision for cases where a necessity not to deliver a common cup arises: in such a case the normal requirement that the sacrament be delivered in both kinds is disapplied by statute. Even if a shared cup cannot be used for medical reasons, the use of individual cups remains contrary to law … . In such cases reception should be in one kind only.” The House cannot authorise or encourage a practice which would be contrary to law.”

 February 2021 General Synod Questions  and the written answers, [Q9, Q10, and Q11], 

November 2021 General Synod Questions and written answers [Q38-41]:

The Bishop of Lichfield on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: 

 The House recognises that different ministers and churches have in good conscience adopted a variety of forms of administration of Holy Communion while Covid-19 continues to circulate in the general population. Whatever approach is taken, ministers and churches should be guided by the symbolism and ideal of ‘one bread and one cup’.

On Tuesday 16th November 2021 in answer to supplementary questions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7rAldeH2Oc&t=136s QQ38-43 approx.. 3:35:30.

(I understand an official transcript will eventually be available.)

I have attempt to type out the most relevant bits and sum up where all this might leave us. No doubt you'll put me right if you think I've erred. But I recommend watching the exchange in full. Even via the recording I think one can get a sense that the Bishops have not carried the whole of the room with them. There is clearly strong feeling that this has been and perhaps remains a mess.

So far the Bishops do not intend to bring forward legislation or give official permission for individual cups, it seems. The Bishop of Litchfield said on their behalf that the House of Bishops and individual bishops are not interested in policing this matter in an inquisitorial or punitive way. There is not necessarily an obligation to let your Diocesan bishop know that you are using individual cups. Experimentation is taking place and there will be an ongoing conversation. You will judge for yourself whether or not the message was just go ahead with this if you think this is the only workable solution in your local context. 

Especially interesting to me was The Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone's contention that the matter was more historically open than some might have been led to believe. In 1902, Archbishop Frederick Temple was said to have said that there was nothing illegal in the proposal of individual cups and that provision should be made by the church wardens or by the communicants themselves if it was desired.

 As Ian Paul notes in his latest post on this (scroll down to section 3) the relevant quotation is from: The Globe newspaper (26 April 1902):

On another question connected with the Holy Communion an important ruling has just been given by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Somebody has asked Dr Temple whether, in view of the possible danger of infection during the administration of the chalice, he would authorise the provision of small glasses into which the consecrated wine may be poured for individual consumption. We have not seen the words of the reply, but it is stated that the Archbishop declares there is nothing illegal in the proposal, the provision being made either by the churchwardens or by the communicant who himself desires it.

The legality question is somewhat open and has not been tested in court.

Some have questioned the importance of this, but there is nothing really more important than the Lord's Day Service. Cult drives culture and this is a matter of obedience to Christ. As Jesus said, we should seek to be faithful in tithing our herbs, whilst of course not neglecting the greater matters of the law like justice, mercy and faithfulness. The Eucharist is the central act of the gathered church's special worship where the church is most visible in the world. Of course how we do it matters very much. If it does not, we might as well leave The Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship on the shelf and get on with foodbanks or street preaching according to our theological tribe.

Some are concerned that we might look ridiculous to the watching world to be arguing about this. Perhaps we will. But Communion itself looks pretty odd to some. So does much of the dressing up and ritual of the church. Or its theological squabbles. Sometimes it is important to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (an infinite number, by the way, if we accept they have location but not extension).

If we worry about looking ridiculous, we might ask who or what is ridiculous?

A two year "ban" on wine for the laity at Communion? I could live with this for a couple of weeks either side of half term. Maybe "the get through this don't make a fuss" argument had some force then.

A Common cup during a pandemic? Some medics think that crazy and irresponsible. It seems some will be reluctant ever to return to a common cup. It is hard to think we would encourage it in any other context. I confess that drinking up the spittle of 100 people in the winter when some of them have nasty colds doesn't fill me with joy, though of course I am willing to do so. Some Christians are convinced that they will be miraculously protected from infection via the Eucharist or that silver or alcohol will work wonders, but the evidence is not good.

I can see that the symbolism of one cup and one loaf could be important and ideal. In many ways I would prefer a Common Cup myself. But the thing is that multiple cups and individual wafers are already allowed and are common. One might say the Vicar is using an individual cup now! The funny thing is that the NT stresses one loaf, but wafers have never been part of one loaf. One cup is much less clear in the Bible and we suspect multiple cups were used at the Passover.

If some are frightened (rightly or wrongly) to take a Common Cup, I think reasonable provision should be made for them. (As it seems to me it should be for alcoholics and celiacs too). We do not want to exclude anyone unnecessarily. 

Is the real worry reverent consumption of all the wine at the end? If so, let those with that concern be clear and specific about it. Why could all two hundred cups not be washed out with water (perhaps by the communicant, who then consumes the water) and then wiped with a cloth? Yes, this would be an enormous faff, but if it is the only way to lawfully obey the command of Jesus in the Church of England, let us spend 15 minutes after the service so that it can be done. (One might wonder whether consumption of every last drop of the wine is ever possible at a microscopic level even with a common cup). 

(For a Roman Catholic expression of this concern we may quote from The New Yorker: "We believe that the wine becomes the blood of Christ,” said Father Andrew Menke, who directs the Secretariat of Divine Worship at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (U.S.C.C.B.). “So the priest cleans the chalice very carefully. He doesn’t want drops going down the drain. He doesn’t want Christ’s blood in the sewer.”)

Surely it is not rocket science for the leadership of the church to find a solution that works for almost everyone. Even if some bishops do not like individual cups and do not want to use them themselves, surely the House of Bishops could publish some form of words which says to parishes that wish to use individual cups, blessings upon you, and maybe here is some best practice guidance to think about so that this can be done as well as possible and as many people as possible can be kept happy.

Dr Paul concludes: "What became apparent in the exchange [in General Synod Tues 16th Nov 2021] is that the House of Bishops have not offered any clear or convincing support for their prohibition on the use of individual cups at Communion, that there is actually a diversity of practice on the ground, and that this diversity will continue. I think it would help all concerned if we heard a simple admission: ‘We got it wrong’."" (Blog post linked above)

It is a great shame to see the sacrament somewhat distorted in the current manner and a cause of real sadness that this could be a cause of disunity.

Giving thanks in the Eucharist as Christ commanded, we could then more joyfully and unitedly get on with the vital, urgent and important task of world evangelisation without being seen to make an undue fuss about trivia or legalities. It would give us all joy, no doubt, to talk about something other than Anglican minutia,

(I would also love to know, by the way, whether individual cups are used in any other Provinces? I am told they are (Hong Kong and Tanzania being examples) but it would be nice to have a list / footnote. Presumably these Provinces have a version of the BCP / hold the BCP in high regard and do not think individual cups incompatible with it. Could be an excellent topic for the ABC to discuss at the next Lambeth Conference!)

(And what signal do our ecumenical partners think it sends to say that individual cups are of questionable legality or suitability? I am worried we are not being nice to the Baptist Union here. And was this discussed with the Methodist Church? I believe individual cups would sometimes be used in a Methodist / Anglican LEP for example? I understand that at least one Diocesan was incumbent of an LEP using individual cups 30 years ago.)

(As mentioned - was it hinted at - in the synod debate, if consecrated wine is taken to the sick or housebound after a Communion Service, this might give a precedent for some to use an individual (or household) cup for practical or medial reasons, perhaps shared with one minister only.)

I would love to see more from the General Synod, the House of Bishops and / or the Legal Advisor Commission on this but I fear this may be as good as it is going to get. And it is enough, I think. If the coming of Spring and booster vaccines don't solve all our problems, I am tempted to feel that the time will have come for incumbents to get on with it in consultation with their PCCs if that is what the local situation seems to demand. 

No doubt lovely expensive Communion sets are available but what is needed may not break the bank. Pleasant glasses are available at a very reasonable price on the high street. One need not use an ecclesiastical supplier. Wine could be consecrated in a common vessel. Households may wish to continue to use a common cup if feel able. There could still be a Common Cup for those who are keen on it. So we could do all we can to preserve the "one-ness" of the wine, even if we seem unconcerned about this if we use wafers! 

Christmas Display Competition 2021

 https://www.warbletonchurch.org.uk/christmas-display-competition/

For A Sacred Secular "Divide"

There is a slogan abroad which attacks the sacred / secular divide. But it more accurate to criticise the harm which a version of the sacred / secular divide can do. 

In Bible terms, there is the sacred (the holy) and the ordinary: there is the temple / garden / mountain and the land (and the world, for that matter). 

Sunday is special. Gathered worship is special. There is the church and there is the world. The church has its special officers (presbyters and deacons and so on). And it has The Word. There are also other ordinary words for the rest of the week. It has its sacraments of the Supper and Baptism - there are other ordinary meals and washings and so on. 

So we are not aiming to abolish a sacred / secular distinction. Yes, all of life is worship, but that does not devalue special gathered communal public worship which God commands.

What we must emphasise is that the common and ordinary (the secular, if you like) matters to God. And the sacred is meant to affect the secular. The culture always follows the cult, for good or ill. The pulpit is the prow, the helm of the world. Our Lord's Day service of Covenant Renewal in the Mountain / Temple equips us for life in the world / land as we fulfil our vocation of making earth more like heaven, of cultivating the land, of spreading out the influence of the Garden. 

Sacred and ordinary both good, both important, to be distinguished not separated. 

Objectivity & Inspiration

 I have been finding Professor Paul Helm's little book on Scripture, Just Words: Special Revelation and the Bible (Evangelical Press, 2019), helpful and thought provoking. It has taken me a while to get into this book but I've found Helm's clarity and precision rewarding. 

For example, he usefully stresses the historical and objective aspects of the Bible. God has acted and spoken decisively and publicly. The Christian faith must proclaim clearly to a culture obsessed with progress and the contemporary that these past events and the biblical testimony about them are authoritative for all people and all places, even if the context of both event and hearer matter. What God has done and said is neither merely timeless nor time-bound but can speak effectively (if somewhat accommodated-ly) to all times. 

Helm also usefully discusses the modes of inspiration. He suggests we may distinguish the more prophetic (such as some Old Testament oracles) and the more compiling (such as some history or Luke's writing of his gospel). But these things are always on a spectrum. The Apostle Paul certainly claims special revelation and divine authority but he is compiling in the sense that he is using pre-existing words and history and he will have been influenced by a great many other testimonies about Jesus. As many writers have commented, what matters most is not the manner of inspiration but the result. However the Bible came to be, what the Bible says, God says. It comes to us as the very voice and words of God. 

Helm rightly urges us to consider both the matter and manner of Scripture: what it is and how it says what it says. The different genres, styles and aims of this library of books make a difference. The Bible is highly selective, focused on God's purposes in Christ. It is not a modern history or biography nor even a theology encyclopaedia or text book. An infallible poem could be rather different from an infallible letter or parable.

We will do well to attend to the aim and scope of the Scriptures as a whole and in their parts, keeping the central plot line in focus. The verbal inspiration of Scripture calls for a patient and careful study of all its words but at time we will want to follow a dense argument closely whereas there might be other passages (such as some of the poetry of Job) which are painting with larger brush strokes.

Daniel Strange, Making Faith Magnetic

 

Daniel Strange, Making Faith Magnetic: Five Hidden Themes Our Culture Can’t Stop Talking About… and How to Connect Them to Christ (The Good Book Company, 2021)

174pp

 

I imagine most of us feel we could use some help with our evangelism. A quick look at this book suggests that it might also help us to love Christ more fully and thoughtfully. It’s not so much a book of tips on how to share the gospel as a framework (or scaffolding) to help us connect our faith and our friends.

 

Strange argues that all people long for totality (connection to some meaningful big story), a norm (a way to live), deliverance (a way out, something that will fix things), destiny (control) and a higher power (something beyond, transcendence). Subsequent chapters then seek to show how Christ is the proper end of the search for all these things. Christ fulfils our God-given longing and subverts the false gods we hope will satisfy us.

 

A brief appendix suggests how the preacher might make use of this to speak more magnetically.

 

A fuller review to follow (perhaps in The Global Anglican) in due course when I have, hopefully, you know, read the book.

 

This book is clearly related to Dan’s earlier work: Plugged In (which I discussed here: https://marclloyd.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-brief-review-daniel-strange-plugged-in.html)

 

Small church leadership

 All churches are different, of course. 

My curacy was in a larger town centre church. There were three administrators who between them must have done more than 40 hours a week; a paid verger; a full time youth and children's worker. And of course many volunteers. 

But everything was pretty much sorted out in the weekly staff and church wardens' meeting. The Vicar never sent and email. The office took care of everything (including printing incoming emails and typing responses). They, or a church warden, would get together a team for that event. Or check with so and so. And so on. The vicar and curate had to do very little by way of organising or implementing on the practical side of things. 

In my experience, leading three small churches with no other paid help is actually in many ways more complex and demanding. In particular, there is no one obvious go to person, except the Vicar. Jobs are shared around, which is great, but it requires someone to know and remember who does what and to make sure they are doing it again / have done it etc. Sometimes jobs are done by teams and its not even very obvious whose in the team or who the team leader / contact person should be either in theory or in practice. Some needs will be brilliantly anticipated - or maybe pre-empted in a way you may not have expected, which of course can produce its own challenges. Other balls can be dropped if no one makes the call and checks its been heard and done. 

This - along with church yard management - is one of the many things my curacy didn't really prepare me for.