Comments on: Christ the King http://liturgy.co.nz/reign-christ/1957 Worship that works - spirituality that connects Sat, 26 May 2012 20:50:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bosco Peters http://liturgy.co.nz/reign-christ/1957#comment-2606 Bosco Peters Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:27:17 +0000 http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/?p=1957#comment-2606 Bob, my sermon this morning, compared Christ's kingship with our monarchy in robes, procession, crown, throne, guards, etc. I think Christ's kingship turns our normal concept of royalty upside down and inside out. I'm not sure where you get your origin of this Sunday from - if you clicked through to my commentary, you would note I source it as a response to Reformation Sunday. I'm not sure that all the "divine right" has gone. As Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth is officially, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." She is, of course, the first Elizabeth to be queen of New Zealand. This means, IMO, there is an error in her title. She is Queen Elizabeth the Second in England. She should actually be Queen Elizabeth the First here. Bob, my sermon this morning, compared Christ’s kingship with our monarchy in robes, procession, crown, throne, guards, etc.
I think Christ’s kingship turns our normal concept of royalty upside down and inside out.
I’m not sure where you get your origin of this Sunday from – if you clicked through to my commentary, you would note I source it as a response to Reformation Sunday.
I’m not sure that all the “divine right” has gone. As Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth is officially, “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.” She is, of course, the first Elizabeth to be queen of New Zealand. This means, IMO, there is an error in her title. She is Queen Elizabeth the Second in England. She should actually be Queen Elizabeth the First here.

]]> By: Bob Chapman http://liturgy.co.nz/reign-christ/1957#comment-2604 Bob Chapman Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:54:19 +0000 http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/?p=1957#comment-2604 Worshiping Christ the King is easy for you to say, because you (technically) have a monarch. Those of us without one find that all sorts of ideas better identified with the Castle at Disney's Magic Kingdom come forth in sermons. In today's world, I'm sure you people with monarchs have it much easier--particularly in constitutional monarchies. There is no more "divine right" associated with the monarch, who only performs functions as head of state, not head of government. I'm reminded that my neighbors to the not-too-far north, Canada, has a picture of Her Majesty on the obverse of the one dollar coin--with a picture of a loon on the reverse. They call this coin with a picture of the monarch the "loonie." It went further. When Canadian paper currency had pictures of birds on the back, they had a very-clearly labeled "common loon" on the back of the $20 bill. It had Her Majesty on the front. So, if I learn from the Canadian example, am I to think of monarchs as loons (common or otherwise)? When I expressed this frustration of calling this Sunday "Christ the King" to my former rector, his response was that maybe I needed to examine it further. All I can say is that his sermons did not help one bit. I still see a monarch as a figurehead called a common loon. Rome only established Christ the King Sunday to counteract what they saw as a problem to the authority of the Pope: the disappearance of the Papal States into Italy, leaving only Vatican City. Why would I want to change that? What I can understand is the concept of the Triumph of Christ. Why can't we call it that? Worshiping Christ the King is easy for you to say, because you (technically) have a monarch. Those of us without one find that all sorts of ideas better identified with the Castle at Disney’s Magic Kingdom come forth in sermons.

In today’s world, I’m sure you people with monarchs have it much easier–particularly in constitutional monarchies. There is no more “divine right” associated with the monarch, who only performs functions as head of state, not head of government.

I’m reminded that my neighbors to the not-too-far north, Canada, has a picture of Her Majesty on the obverse of the one dollar coin–with a picture of a loon on the reverse. They call this coin with a picture of the monarch the “loonie.”

It went further. When Canadian paper currency had pictures of birds on the back, they had a very-clearly labeled “common loon” on the back of the $20 bill. It had Her Majesty on the front.

So, if I learn from the Canadian example, am I to think of monarchs as loons (common or otherwise)?

When I expressed this frustration of calling this Sunday “Christ the King” to my former rector, his response was that maybe I needed to examine it further. All I can say is that his sermons did not help one bit. I still see a monarch as a figurehead called a common loon.

Rome only established Christ the King Sunday to counteract what they saw as a problem to the authority of the Pope: the disappearance of the Papal States into Italy, leaving only Vatican City. Why would I want to change that?

What I can understand is the concept of the Triumph of Christ. Why can’t we call it that?

]]>