Slides during worship?

124

Comments

  • Tell it not in Gath, but I've seen PowerPoint used at Catholic and Orthodox conferences, but not in worship, mercifully.

    I have seen PowerPoint used to display music lyrics and prayers, along with some pretty backgrounds behind the words, at Roman Catholic churches in the US in Florida and in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. I haven't seen PowerPoint used during a Roman Catholic homily/sermon, but that does not mean it has not happened somewhere.
  • This recent song which we sing a lot is not lining out in the sense of repeating what the leader sings, but similarly easy to grasp as the congretgation only has 2 lines to sing
    give thanks to God
  • We do a lot of lining out in Girl Guide (and Brownie and Scouts) campfire sing songs.

    Yes, the term was unfamiliar to me, but I was about to say that's the way simple songs are usually taught to children, especially pre-readers. Most Sunday School songs are taught that way ("King Jesus" comes to mind).

  • Leo wrote: »

    But you can't force kids to learn. you have to appeal to their preferences in order to motivate them.

    To their interests and experience (like the tractor-obsessed student struggling with angles with whom I used the analogy of turning a spanner yesterday) but not to some output of a meaningless test that labels them as visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. There's no evidence that pandering to those preferences results in improvements in learning. You select the appropriate method of delivery based on the content, not on the student.
  • My name is Mark and I use Powerpoint.
    There: I've confessed. In our multi nationality church, the simple English and relevant pictures seem to be welcomed and appreciated. I understand that in some eyes, this makes us strange and uncouth but hey ....
  • The use of simple English has nothing to do with the use of PowerPoint.

    You can have PowerPoints in unintelligible English (if only because the font is too small or the background obscures the text) just as you can make a special effort to use simple English (or any other language) without using PowerPoint (which I do).

    The kind of thinking I'm pushing back against here is precisely this confusion between form and content.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I'm fairly sure that 'lining out' is the origin of the remarkable way psalms are sung in Gaelic - particularly since many of the tunes are theoretically the same as ordinary Common Metre tunes used in English, but not so as you'd be able to recognise any connection.

    Absolutely. And one of my churches still has the "precentor's box" immediately below the very high pulpit (which I don't use) and raised a good six feet above the congregation, so that everyone could hear the line as it was given out.
  • To go back a bit ... No-one seems to have picked up on my comment to Thunderbunk, who detests Powerpoint in worship: "Are you sure it's the mere use (or potential for misuse) of the screens themselves which disturb you? Or is it because they are so often linked with contemporary worship music, evangelical theology, and informality?"
  • My reservations about PowerPoint are nothing to do with its apparent uncouthness. I attended the Orthodox Easter Vigil this year and if we were so inclined we could regard a lot of the very poor Bulgarian, Romanian and other Eastern European migrants there as 'uncouth.'

    I'll admit, I found some of them intimidating, but that says more about me than it says about them.

    I'm not against the use of projecting words per se, in multicultural settings etc. Heck, I noticed on an arty programme about Beirut on BBC4 last night that the Maronite Cathedral had the Arabic words for their liturgy projected onto a screen,.
  • Wet Kipper wrote: »
    This recent song which we sing a lot is not lining out in the sense of repeating what the leader sings, but similarly easy to grasp as the congretgation only has 2 lines to sing
    give thanks to God

    Nothing new there. I can remember worship songs with simple repeated refrains back in the 1980s and they go back further than that.

    The old lining out thing wasn't about repeating short lines over and over but more about breaking lengthy hymns and Psalms into bite-size chunks.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    My Mennonite Church makes use of technology in various forms, including projection. The co-pastors often read their scripture for the day from their phones. And I remember one time the youth minister texted the pastor during the message with a suggestion about something to say. She told us then, and we all thought it was funny.

    I like our congregation for many reasons. Among them are the use of technology to enhance worship and the joy that keeps us from thinking that to worship means to never smile or laugh.

    There have been a few times that technology has failed us or has not produced the desired effect, but we shrug it off.

    There seems to be a feeling with us that if a projection during a hymn or message is not to your liking, the service will provide something later that is better.

    Just this past Sunday we started projecting the announcements prior to the beginning of worship--a great help to me since I can't easily read the printed bulletin.

    We don't project hymn lyrics (I have a large type hymnal).

    I think it's an individual thing. If it feels right to a congregation and enhances worship in the minds and hearts if the congregation, then no harm is done.

    Sometimes I wonder if dissatisfaction occurs when decisions about the use if technology are made without first getting s feel for how folks think about it.
  • your example of a text during the sermon reminded me of the period we had (about 6 weeks or so) where the sermons were based on a "big question" which was presented to the church a week in advance. The congregation were invited to send their responses to the question either to the Church facebook page, Twitter account, or as SMS to a mobile phone which we had, and then as part of each sermon, we put the responses up on the screen so they could be discussed.
  • How do you welcome the illiterate, those without access to or ability to use a computer, and those without mobiles?

    As of 2017, the global penetration of Facebook was 26.3%. In Europe it's 41.7% (ibid). Even in Europe, most people don't have a Facebook account.

    I don't have a graph to hand showing the overlap between the top population categories the Gospel directs us to and the use of digital technology, but I think you can guess what I imagine it looks like.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    (Are we the only two Projector Pilots on the Ship?)
    In my parents' church, they're called the Beam Team.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Eutychus, we've done something similar to what We Kipper's congregation did. We also had printed material available for folks who don't have cell phones or computers or who don't like using them for such things. We don't have illiterate members right now, but if we did, we would most certainly accept answers in person.

    Our congregation knows that not everyone is comfortable with technology, so we try not to make it the only way we express ourselves in worship or in the life of the community.

    So far, our use had been received positively. But if it seemed to be devisive or created an atmosphere of exclusion, we would reevaluate.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    I admit to playing devil's advocate a bit here.

    Second to porn, the church (especially the evangelical end) has historically been at the forefront of lots of new technology and that's probably a good thing overall.

    Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the reality of the digital divide not only between countries but within rich countries, and that churches' fascination with "some new thing" in pursuit of being "connected with society" may in fact place them further and further away from the people most in need of Good News.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    I get your point, Eutychus, and agree somewhat. Which is why I mentioned above that it doesn't work well unless it is a decision of the whole congregation and not just one person or a small group.

    As for the world at large, I would say go with the situation at hand. We have four Mennonite congregations in my city. Two are refugee congregations and are the most proficient with technology. Then there is mine. And then another where technology isn't used that much.

    I don't think we can say technology use is a good thing for all people in all places at all times. But if the community wants to experiment and has agreed among its members, then it might lead to some enhancements
  • Sure. In my context, I fear the usual logic is

    "hey, we just got back from this conference, they had that gizmo, we need one to keep up and it will deliver the same buzz as we had at the conference right here in our shack"

    rather than

    "let's look responsibly at how best to use our own resources to interact meaningfully with those we are called to reach".
  • On a more general point, which may be pertinent ...

    The contextual thing applies here as to much else.

    I was once involved in a market research project to evaluate the way an agricultural research and development organisation communicated with stake-holders around the world. Lots of Skype calls to Peru, The Philippines, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa ...

    What struck me was how the same technology was applied differently in various parts of the world. Masai cattle herders were using social media to find out about issues around innoculation against tsetse fly. In Latin America at this particular time, social media was hardly used at all. Farmers worked on a more collective basis. In Africa it was more a case of lone herdsmen working in isolation. In the Middle East it was different again ...

    I'd imagine the same principle applies to churches.

    I bet I could guess the predominant demographic of Wet Kipper's church very easily from the clues he/she has given in their posts.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Sure. In my context, I fear the usual logic is

    "hey, we just got back from this conference, they had that gizmo, we need one to keep up and it will deliver the same buzz as we had at the conference right here in our shack"

    rather than

    "let's look responsibly at how best to use our own resources to interact meaningfully with those we are called to reach".

    There is always the possibility of the former, but that's where community discernment comes into play.

    If the congregation likes the idea of something new, wants to try it, and it works out, great.

    If the congregation is on the fence, it can wait or a trail run can happen.

    If the congregation doesn't like the idea, don't go forward.

    And if the Gizmo fails at it's purpose, creates division, or creates an atmosphere of exclusion, then these things need to be addressed and the idea reevaluated.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    On a more general point, which may be pertinent ...

    The contextual thing applies here as to much else.

    I was once involved in a market research project to evaluate the way an agricultural research and development organisation communicated with stake-holders around the world. Lots of Skype calls to Peru, The Philippines, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa ...

    What struck me was how the same technology was applied differently in various parts of the world. Masai cattle herders were using social media to find out about issues around innoculation against tsetse fly. In Latin America at this particular time, social media was hardly used at all. Farmers worked on a more collective basis. In Africa it was more a case of lone herdsmen working in isolation. In the Middle East it was different again ...

    I'd imagine the same principle applies to churches.

    Indeed, GG, that has been my experience as well as the experience of Mennonites and Quakers involved around the world.

    To the thread as a whole....
    But in terms of a digital divide....it's going to be found in all sorts of places, including developed nations. I don't think we should simply say "never" to the use of technology because of this, but rather should be creative in finding ways to implement and include.

    To simply use technology with no thought about who is in the pew and giving them a chance to weigh in is shortsighted, IMO.
  • sabine wrote: »
    My Mennonite Church makes use of technology in various forms, including projection. The co-pastors often read their scripture for the day from their phones.
    I'll admit that this would probably give me some pause, and not just because I might have some Luddite tendencies in the sanctuary. While that may be the case, I am also a great believer in what one Canadian Lutheran pastor I know of, Paul Bosch, calls "Ritual Clarity"—the idea that how we do something may communicate more than what we are actually saying.

    Reading of Scripture can a prime example. What is the unspoken message of what we're reading from? What does it say if we're reading from a nicely-bound lectern/pulpit Bible or lectionary? A photocopied sheet? A phone? His take, at least on the first two options, was that reading from the book conveyed that what was being read is permanent and worth honoring, while reading from a photocopied sheet indicated that what was being read is temporary and can disposed of when the reading is done.

    I'm not suggesting that there is a one-size fits all answer, or that books must always win out over photocopies or phones. I can easily imagine that in some communities or among some cohort groups, the "ritual clarity" of reading from a phone might convey accessibility and immediacy of the reading, making it more meaningful (in a good way) in that context.

    The point, as I see it, is not saying that one way or the other is "good" or "bad," or "right" or "wrong." (Though like some others, my experience of really bad PowerPoint probably does lead me to assuming a default of "wrong." I'll work on that.) Rather, I think that however those planning worship are going to do things, it's very worthwhile to ask "what unspoken messages are we sending by doing it this way rather than that way." The valid answers in one congregation may be different from the valid answers in the congregation across the street. And that's okay.

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    sabine wrote: »
    The co-pastors often read their scripture for the day from their phones.

    And since then, it's become a lot easier to surreptitiously read the Ship, nay, post, during church is all I know :blush:

    I've started a thread in Kerygmania to consider the implications of this and @Nick Tamen's observations.
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    sabine wrote: »
    The co-pastors often read their scripture for the day from their phones.

    And since then, it's become a lot easier to surreptitiously read the Ship, nay, post, during church is all I know :blush:

    :smiley: but not really easier than daydreaming or mentally organizing a shopping list.

  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    Very interesting article, followed by another at the bottom of the page called "What We Gained When We Lost Our Hymnals."
  • Different Strokes for different folks as they old saying goes. I am sure many find it useful. I have a friend who is hard of hearing and finds it very helpful to read along on a screen. I on the other hand hate any kind of projected stuff. Church is the one place I want to go to not feel surrounded by technology. I decided not to attend one church because when I visited I viewed a large screen taking up most of the front of the church. During the service I was subjected to rainbows, kittens kind of stuff and a half working projector made it even worse.
  • To answer BT's question, yes, I'm sure there isn't an element of snobbery involved. I simply will not get involved with churches that have screens, for the reason given. Screen = me out.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Lessee - how did we use ours yesterday - we had Led Zep doing Stairway on a loop before the service, then we had two short pieces to camera by Rachel Held Evans and Tom Wright, then we used it for the responses during the liturgy. Some backing imagery, no kittens. Don't recall a rainbow.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Lessee - how did we use ours yesterday - we had Led Zep doing Stairway on a loop before the service
    It's not infrequent for me to warm up on guitar on a Sunday morning belting out the opening chords of Highway To Hell. Sometimes I think God called me to pastoral ministry in an effort to keep me on the straight and narrow.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Lessee - how did we use ours yesterday - we had Led Zep doing Stairway on a loop before the service
    It's not infrequent for me to warm up on guitar on a Sunday morning belting out the opening chords of Highway To Hell. Sometimes I think God called me to pastoral ministry in an effort to keep me on the straight and narrow.

    Heh. Back in my Charevo days I turned up with an electric guitar. I was asked if I could make it sound more like an acoustic. I sighed and put the overdrive pedal back in my bag.
  • While one of my churches projects hymns and notices and the offering prayer which we say together, and it all works fine, and we also have the hymn books in the back of the chairs, I have discovered the downside of projection: next Sunday I am conducting worship in two churches which are without minister, and neither has hymnbooks. No one can tell me what they know to sing/play, but I know, from past experience with these congregations, that when I give them suggestions, it will not be these songs....
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    While one of my churches projects hymns and notices and the offering prayer which we say together, and it all works fine, and we also have the hymn books in the back of the chairs, I have discovered the downside of projection: next Sunday I am conducting worship in two churches which are without minister, and neither has hymnbooks. No one can tell me what they know to sing/play, but I know, from past experience with these congregations, that when I give them suggestions, it will not be these songs....

    Even with hymnbooks you may well find the same thing...
  • But at least with a book I can be fairly certain that there are some in there that they know, if I keep looking and asking. When you have the whole of "Christian music" to choose from it is a bit daunting. Though they won't know much written before the Victorians, and only a few from that period. Actually, the real problem is what they know, I don't! But I don't know what I don't know....
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    I am conducting worship in two churches which are without minister ... No one can tell me what they know to sing/play, but I know, from past experience with these congregations, that when I give them suggestions, it will not be these songs....
    Some years ago I had to preach in a church I didn't know. Very helpfully a large envelope arrived beforehand containing a 14-page list of "Hymns and songs we know" - wonderful! I carefully chose my music accordingly and sent off my choices well before time. Come the service, not only did the congregation NOT know a couple of the pieces, but the organist couldn't play one (which I thought was well-known).

    Of course it was All My Fault and I was never asked back ...

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Lessee - how did we use ours yesterday - we had Led Zep doing Stairway on a loop before the service, then we had two short pieces to camera by Rachel Held Evans and Tom Wright, then we used it for the responses during the liturgy. Some backing imagery, no kittens. Don't recall a rainbow.

    Not even Ritchie Blackmore and Rainbow?

    I'll get me coat ...

    ;)

    It could have been worse, I suppose. You could have had the Rolf Harris version of Stairway to Heaven. Actually, come to think of it ...

    ;)

    Only joking. I'm not angling for another Hell Call.

    But what ees zeese 'loop-tape' of which you speak?

    I think I'd find a loop-tape difficult to deal with even if was playing Gregorian Chant, Monteverdi's Vespers, a Bach Chorale, dub reggae, Babylon's Burning by the Ruts, Johnny Cash or the Treorchy Male Voice Choir singing Gwa Hoddiad.

    Mind you, I wanted the latter at my dad's funeral but they all chickened out because they didn't want everyone to be in bits ... as we would have been, it being South Wales and all.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Lessee - how did we use ours yesterday - we had Led Zep doing Stairway on a loop before the service, then we had two short pieces to camera by Rachel Held Evans and Tom Wright, then we used it for the responses during the liturgy. Some backing imagery, no kittens. Don't recall a rainbow.

    Not even Ritchie Blackmore and Rainbow?

    I'll get me coat ...

    ;)

    It could have been worse, I suppose. You could have had the Rolf Harris version of Stairway to Heaven. Actually, come to think of it ...

    ;)

    Only joking. I'm not angling for another Hell Call.

    But what ees zeese 'loop-tape' of which you speak?

    I think I'd find a loop-tape difficult to deal with even if was playing Gregorian Chant, Monteverdi's Vespers, a Bach Chorale, dub reggae, Babylon's Burning by the Ruts, Johnny Cash or the Treorchy Male Voice Choir singing Gwa Hoddiad.

    Mind you, I wanted the latter at my dad's funeral but they all chickened out because they didn't want everyone to be in bits ... as we would have been, it being South Wales and all.

    Sound was on quiet. It was just a preliminary scene-setter. I think it played through twice while we were still in the bar anyway.

    Oh, and behave.
  • I'm only meckin' ...

    On a serious note, I s'pose I can see how a loop-tape (playing whatever it happens to be playing) can act as a 'scene-setter' just as well as anything else - an organ, guitar, unaccompanied singing or whatever else it might be ...

    Other than the reference to 'Heaven' I'm not sure how the Led Zepp song is supposed to set the scene, other than it being seen as a culturally appropriate choice for the particular demographic at your church.

    Why not 'Angels instead' by Robbie Williams or Annie Lennox and the Eurythmics singing 'There must be an angel (playing with my heart)'?

    Or the old Cole Porter classic, 'Cheek to Cheek'?

    'Heaven, I'm in heaven ...'

    I mean, just because a song has a reference to 'heaven' in it does that mean it qualifies for use in a worship setting?

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, good bad or indifferent to have 'Stairway to Heaven' playing on a loop-tape as a lead in to the service but I do find myself wondering what message it's meant to convey - other than to indicate that the service is aimed at a particular 'tribe' or demographic ...

  • And just in case anyone thinks I'm being selective, I'd say the same if the loop-tape happened to be playing stuff I'd listen to at home. I'd wonder what it was meant to convey.

    At one time it was seen as being cool in some circles to have a 'U2 Mass' or for anything that had mildly 'spiritual' lyrical content to be appropriated for worshippy purposes. I suppose that's happened for a long time, the Salvation Army adopting and adapting Music Hall songs being the paradigm example perhaps.

    If it's ambient music we're after then why not whale-song?

    It's got to be something to do with 'identity', with nailing our colours to a particular mast.

    Otherwise why not have Arvo Part or Gorecki playing on the loop-tape to set the scene? Or Byrd or Tavener?

    I can think of a lot worse choices than 'Stairway to Heaven', but I must admit I am puzzled. It's not as if it's particularly cool or cutting edge in any way.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    And just in case anyone thinks I'm being selective, I'd say the same if the loop-tape happened to be playing stuff I'd listen to at home. I'd wonder what it was meant to convey.

    At one time it was seen as being cool in some circles to have a 'U2 Mass' or for anything that had mildly 'spiritual' lyrical content to be appropriated for worshippy purposes. I suppose that's happened for a long time, the Salvation Army adopting and adapting Music Hall songs being the paradigm example perhaps.

    If it's ambient music we're after then why not whale-song?

    It's got to be something to do with 'identity', with nailing our colours to a particular mast.

    Otherwise why not have Arvo Part or Gorecki playing on the loop-tape to set the scene? Or Byrd or Tavener?

    I can think of a lot worse choices than 'Stairway to Heaven', but I must admit I am puzzled. It's not as if it's particularly cool or cutting edge in any way.

    Don't overthink it. I doubt our priest did. It was hardly the main point.
  • TomMTomM Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    I am conducting worship in two churches which are without minister ... No one can tell me what they know to sing/play, but I know, from past experience with these congregations, that when I give them suggestions, it will not be these songs....
    Some years ago I had to preach in a church I didn't know. Very helpfully a large envelope arrived beforehand containing a 14-page list of "Hymns and songs we know" - wonderful! I carefully chose my music accordingly and sent off my choices well before time. Come the service, not only did the congregation NOT know a couple of the pieces, but the organist couldn't play one (which I thought was well-known).

    Of course it was All My Fault and I was never asked back ...

    If one is using projection (at least in the UK), then in some ways an accurate version of such a list should relatively easy to produce. After all, when doing the return on the Copyright Licence each year, you need to indicate what you've used, so should have a list of everything projected in that time.

    It might need pruning of the ones that nobody knew when it was sung, but it's at least a start.
  • Sure. Mind you, even stuff we do unconsciously conveys a message of some kind.

    Whatever is played is going to get some kind of reaction.

    I remember an Irish RC priest telling me how he'd taken to playing a short piece of classical music on a CD as a lead in to Mass. He told me that the English people in his congregation would say to him afterwards, 'Oh, that piece of music, Father ... It was so moving ...'

    Whereas the Irish folk would all come up to him afterwards and say, 'What the hell was that you played, Father? It was bloody boring! What the feck are you doing? Trying to bore us all to death?'

    ;)
  • TomM wrote: »
    If one is using projection (at least in the UK), then in some ways an accurate version of such a list should relatively easy to produce. After all, when doing the return on the Copyright Licence each year, you need to indicate what you've used, so should have a list of everything projected in that time.

    Well that all depends on whether or not your church keeps abreast of copyright law or if it is one of the many (reckoned to be anthing up to 1 in 5) that break the law on this one.

    Did you all know that the law about recorded music for weddings and funerals has changed? For weddings, where you can almost guarantee that someone will be recording the thing on their phone, if recorded music is played then the couple (not the church) need to get a Limited Licence and the church needs to supply details of same, and the music played, for their return. (CCLI don't do the LL - its PRSPPL).

  • I was at a Memorial Service last week. The deceased had requested a private funeral, to be followed a month later by a Memorial Service. She had chosen the readings and hymns for the service. It was an excellent service, thoughtfully done. The words to the hymns were on a screen, which was a Good Thing as far I was concerned. (There were eleven hymns, though some were a single verse only, so the screen saved a lot of flicking through the hymnary.)

    The bit that surprised me was that the service included a short section of clips from the funeral; the hearse approaching the cemetery, the coffin inside the hearse, the coffin at the graveside, the distribution of the cords, those present dropping flowers into the grave, a close up of the wreaths. There was no footage of the coffin being lowered, (possibly the camera person had a cord).

    This section wasn't included as an item in the printed Order of Service.

    I found this an odd thing to watch, but I'm not sure why. Has anyone else seen clips from a funeral used like this? Given the overall quality of the service, I'm sure there was a reason, but I can't think what it was.
  • I've not come across this, although I have seen slides and even a video clip of the deceased being used, at the funeral (in church) itself.
  • Yes, the last two funerals I've been at had a selection of photos of the deceased on the screen in church as people were coming in and taking their seats. Photos of the hearse and coffin seems to be quantitatively different, though. Of course, a church funeral takes place prior to the committal, and you know what the hearse and coffin look like because the former is parked outside and the latter is in the church.

    I don't think that I would be comfortable being filmed graveside. I've only taken a cord once (for my grandfather) and I would have hated to be filmed then.
  • SignallerSignaller Shipmate
    It seems strange to me that there was both a printed order of service and words on a screen. In my experience the main purpose of producing a printed leaflet is to save people having to flick through the hymn book or squint at a screen. I'd be interested to hear whether having both gave any benefit.
  • Of course, a church funeral takes place prior to the committal . . . .
    Committals prior to the church service are not unusual here, at least in some traditions, Presbyterians being one. It's the norm in my family—committal at the cemetery attended by family and close friends, followed, either immediately or soon after, by the service at the church. Of course, the service in that instance is properly called a memorial service rather than a funeral.

    And that said, I can't imagine the purpose of showing pictures of the hearse and coffin.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    If the deceased were to be cremated, would they show clips of the casket being moved on conveyor belt into the oven?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Of course, a church funeral takes place prior to the committal . . . .
    Committals prior to the church service are not unusual here, at least in some traditions.
    Increasingly, committal followed by funeral seems to becoming common in England. The advantage is that it avoids guests having to hang around for the buffet while the family go to the crematorium. On the other hand I think it's a bit emotionally "harsh" to go straight to the crem. for just a brief service.

Sign In or Register to comment.