Comments on: Stir-up Sunday

By: Mark Diebel

Mark Diebel — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:03:59 +0000

Funny you should mention “Stir up” Sunday… I’ve never heard the term before, but yesterday (Sunday, the 26th) a visitor arrived, female, older, and said, “today’s Stir up Sunday”… I looked puzzled and her friend accompanying her, in his thirties or forties said, “whatever that is.”
Thanks for the education… we seem to learn surprising stuff all the time.

By: Chavlin

Chavlin — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:57:59 +0000

As I was pondering on what my major themes would be this Christmas and Advent (if they are not already given!) I came across an article by Giles Fraser
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/fraser/article_061114purity.shtml
This isn’t exactly about Christ the King, but it does offer a nice polemic. What are the differences between Christ the King, the conqueror, the acheiver? compared to that of the babe, the helpless, the incapable?
I think this year, I’m going to get ready for the Christ who was born ino the ‘mud and thorns of life.’ (a prayer by Terry Hinks)

By: brodie

brodie — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:19:43 +0000

Maggi – thanks for this post. I love the posts you do like this where you bring Church traditions and aspects of the Church calender alive.

By: maggi

maggi — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:20:28 +0000

I think I would find it impossible to preach on Kingship without pointing out the difficulties of the concept in the 21st century. you might like to check whether Dylan’s lectionary blog has any archive on Christ the King – she’s good at interpretation on controversial issues

By: andy goodliff

andy goodliff — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:15:41 +0000

Maggi as I would expect you are very helpful. thanks for this interesting history. I’m preaching this sunday on john 18 and one of the things I want to explore is the whole notion of how we understand the kingship of Christ – and does christ determine what king means or is the other way round.

By: maggi

maggi — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:03:25 +0000

andy, the answer to that depends on whether you mean why was it put there in the first place, or how has it come to be interpreted subsequently. ‘Christ the King’ was insituted as a feast by Pope Pius XI in 1925, and was celebrated at the end of October. It raised no small controversy (still does frm time to time) because many felt that the idea of “King” was outmoded, and didn’t any longer convey the meaning it had once contained. The Pope, however, thought it should convey King of all creation, rather than an oppressive King. The feast was moved to the Sunday that falls Nov 20-26th (last Sunday of the Church year) after Vatican II (1969 ?). It makes sense at that point in the CHurch year, as the idea of Christ the King is the fulfilment of the journey from anticipation through birth, life, death , resurrection, ascension, pentecost.
But, conveniently, the contemplation of CHrist as the fulfilment of everything at the end of everything takes you right back to the already-but-not-yet aspect of the Kingdom of God. And that rather neatly leads you back into Advent the week after. So I have to say its location as the last sunday of the church year works rather well from that point of view.
Having said that, and although I don’t dispute the theological concepts that feed into Christ the King, I do think that the name itself gives all sorts of problems of interpretation. The ideas could just as well – or perhaps better – be delivered with diferent language, I think.

By: andy goodliff

andy goodliff — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:47:42 +0000

Maggi – is there any reason for having a christ the king sunday and for it to come as the last sunday of the church calender and not perhaps say earlier?