What is in Kelvin's Head?

Society Against Sundays in the Month

12/05/2013

Why is there no church society for those of us who believe that Sundays-in-the-Month are one of the works of darkness that beset the church and tempt it into doom and decline?

You know the kind of thing I mean – Matins on the first Sunday in the month and Eucharist on the rest. Or modern liturgy every Sunday except when there is a fifth Sunday in the month when it shall be the language of the Scottish Prayer Book ~~1928~~ 1929. Or 10.30 am Sung Eucharist every week except the 2nd Sunday in the month when it is matins with the Methodists. Or First and Fourth Sundays in Auchendoggle, third Sunday in Auchendrizzle and a united service on the fourth Sunday in the month – see the church porch notice for details.

I’d be interested in any research in this area. Is it the case that there is a statistical correlation between decline and those practising the doctrine of Sundays in the Month?

Isn’t every notice which includes an intimation about the Sunday in the Month speaking to the world of a congregation either divided by compromise or prepared to announce its decline to the world?

Why do we never talk about this?

8 responses to “Bin Ladin”

Hermano David | Brother Dahâ€¢veed

02/05/2011

I agree with him entirely.

Then I think my friend that you join him in a conclusion that at this moment cannot be substantiated by fact. There is no evidence that bin Laden was executed. He died in a fire fight when the team tasked with his capture tried to do so. To claim more than the facts currently state is to jump to a conclusion based in personal prejudice.

Aside from that one discrepancy, I also agree with much of what he said.

Reply
Agatha

02/05/2011

It did occur to me that the UK does public rejoicing (see Friday) better than the US (see this morning).

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

03/05/2011

We have no room for complacency – remember ‘Gotcha’ in the Falklands war???

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  Yes, that was vulgar too.
  
  Reply
David

04/05/2011

Irrespective of the terrible atrocities masterminded by individuals such as Osama Bin-Laden…and…regardless of the improbable scenario of his being captured alive and put on trial, the rejoicing that followed his death was both tacky and tactless. Comments (albeit by family members of 9/11 victims) alluding to …”God placing him in Hell to rot for eternity…” similarly did nobody any favours. If anything, the backlash from extremists eager to avenge his death (martyrdom?) will now cost further innocent lives. The phrase that jumps to mind is: ‘least said soonest mended…’

Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

I’m not sure that pacifist prooftexting is any lbetter than the other kinds. It’s surely morally permissable to celebrate the death of a legitimate, significant military target. And much of the “fanning the flames” rhetoric is inane – people can argue over whether nominally Islamic terrorism can be appeased , but the idea of Al-Queda dialing back their actions or reforming their ethos because (say) the world didn’t overly celebrate killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. Wouldn’t capturing him alive and forcing him to endure infidel courts be even more provocative than a martyr’s bullet and burial at sea?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  I don’t think I like the idea of celebrating the death of anyone, Ryan.
  
  That’s the kind of thing we find too often in the Bible, isn’t it? And it is vulgar there too.
  
  I don’t like lynch mob mentality no matter who is on the receiving end.
  
  Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

Indeed – I agree that the “get it up ye!” response very much does not represent humankind at its best. But not celebrating *anyone’s* death is quite different, to me, to the most popular current arguments that largely emphasise that Bin Ladin personally is an inappropriate figure for Sic Semper Tyrannis triumphalism.

I found the Vatican’s reaction interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Europe

Reply