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?

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

Eamonn

15/07/2010

I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

Reply
agatha

15/07/2010

That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

Reply
FrPaulB

16/07/2010

As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

Reply
Martin Ritchie

16/07/2010

Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

Reply
fr dougal

16/07/2010

I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

Reply
John Lindsay

21/07/2010

The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

Reply
kelvin

21/07/2010

Hi John, nice to hear from you.

I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Reply