A composer that YOU should know about...

For my birthday the other day my lovely wife got me a CD by Morten Lauridsen. Lauridsen (pictured to the left) is the most performed living America choral composer. He has been called the only American composer who is a "mystic". He composes lots of sacred works, but also some secular works. For example, on this CD (O Magnum Mysterium), he sets a number of poems by Rilke to music.

I like his work because it is melodic and accessible, but not contrived, or a simple "rehashing" of Christian music from times past. Incidently, that's the same reason I like Arvo Part (though Lauridsen's music is brighter than Part's). His compositions are subtle and understated, but very powerful. He also seems cool because he worked as a Forest Service firefighter for a long time! All great artists have to put in their time doing something else before (or "if ever") they are recognized.
Anyway, I recommend his work to everyone.

The Descent from the Cross - Random Reflections

I just finished painting an "icon" of the Descent from the Cross, based on an image from the Novgorod school. This school of iconography is noted for its use of brilliant colors, even in more somber icons like this one. Now I find myself going back to oil painting, and I am working on one of the crucifixion (a semi-original composition). The colors are dark and earthy, almost like the Rembrandt painting to the left.

It has been fascinating to me to compare these two themes: the crucifixion and the descent from the cross. For me, it is the descent which is the sadder of the two. There is a certain finality present in the descent that is not there in the crucifixion. In the crucifixi0n Jesus is dying. In the descent, He is dead. In the crucifixion, Jesus is still there with some of His disciples, but in the descent, the disciples and His Blessed Mother are all alone. Maybe it also has something to do with the bastardization of the image of the crucifixion... you see it everywhere in popular culture, jewelry, etc. And when you see something that much you almost become numb to it. Not so with the descent. When was the last time we saw someone with a beautiful little "descent from the cross" necklace?

Facilities for Youth Ministry

If anyone out there reading this is planning on building a parish hall for their church, please, please, please consider building something that can double as a gym for the kids of the parish. My parents' church has a lovely, large parish hall (complete with a kitchen) that doubles as a gym. It is made of cinderblock and has really high ceilings and impact resistant windows. It is also carpeted, and even has a basketball key in the carpet (there is a hoop that can be lowered). Whenever they have a fancy dinner, or speaker, the place looks great. But is also is a great asset for the youth ministry, and is used regularly throughout the week for youth activities. Facilities like this help attracts kids and their families to the church, which is the ark of salvation. It is hard to start a youth ministry if there is no room for the kids to have as their own, or gym for them to play in.

We really need to make our facilities kid-friendly if we want to attract young families to the church. I hear more and more about people going to X church, "Because they have good programs for the kids." Not that we need to bcome an alternative to the Boy Scouts, but we do, I think, need to be a little bit more kid-friendly than we are. Having facilities for them is a good way to do that.

More Priesthood Reflections

This is nothing profound, but recently I've been thinking that the two things I like best about being a full time priest are visiting sick people and teaching bible/topical study classes. There is always some surprise, or some unexpected thing that happens, or remark that is made, that makes such encounters really interesting. And it's fascinating, when visiting the sick, to find out about their lives, and everything they have been through and experienced (especially the old ones). I find myself so completely engrossed in their life stories and experiences when I visit them that I often stay a lot longer than I had planned (it's generally best to keep sick visits short, but if they want to talk I'll stay as long as they wish).

I guess I mention this because I used to have the idea (before ordination) that the coolest thing about what a priest did was saying mass, preaching, and doing some other sacramental things. And that stuff is indeed cool. But it is amazing how, when you actually begin a full time priestly ministry, you sometimes find the other responsibilities of the ministry to be more mysterious and fulfilling than some of those other things.

Converts to Rome

I recommend this excellent essay that examines some of the reasons why men and women join the Roman Catholic Church. More important, it highlights some of the many logical fallacies associated with their reasons for leaving Protestantism behind. In the end, citing numerous converts' writings, he talks about Rome being more of an emotional pull. People get swept away with the apparent grandeur and history of Rome, in addition to the theology. I can see that - people make big intellectual decisions based on personal reasons (at least according to Aristotle). But I must confess that it mystifies me when I see this happening today with the state of the Roman liturgy and church. My old spiritual director from my Roman Catholic days was fond of saying, "The Catholic Church is beautiful." And whenever I would hear him say that I'd say to myself, "Correction; the Catholic Church was beautiful." And then there is the famous quote from Paul Claudel where he said regarding the mass at Notre Dame in Paris, "It was the most profound and grandiose poetry, enhanced by the most august gestures ever confided to human beings. I could not sufficiently satiate myself with the spectacle of the mass." Well, I'm sure he could today.

Art as a Teaching Tool

Today in a bible study class at church we were talking about the differences between the docrtine of Purgatory and the doctrine of Paradise. I used a photo of an old bas-relief from a Baltimore church to illustrate what purgatory was about. I think this work of art does that pretty well. It is an incredible work whether you believe in purgatory or not.


I saw one other example of this bas-relief in Baltimore when I worked in church restoration. Has anyone else seen this before?

Chocolate Jesus

I have been meaning to comment on this for sometime. Cosimo Caravello, an artist who works with food as his medium, created a sculpture of Jesus in the "crucfix" form out of chocolate that was to be part of a show called "My Sweet Lord" in NYC. But Bill Donahue, Cardinal Egan, and others managed to strong arm the gallery director into shutting the show down. They apparently objected to Jesus being portrayed in chocolate and in the nude. Chocolate must be evil. And I guess Jesus was not anatomically the same as other men... he must have only appeared to be a man. In real ife, he was probably more like a Ken doll. (St. James the Average rolls his eyes)

This is just another example of how out of touch most Christians are with postmodern art and the art world, and how they subtly affirm long condemned christological heresies (i.e. Docetism). There is nothing wrong with using chocolate as an artistic medium, which is precisely what this artist does as his trademark. What makes using chocolate as a medium bad? Has anyone ever stopped to wonder if wood or stone are acceptable mediums in which to portary Jesus Christ? I mean, we use stone to pave roads, and we burn wood in fires. Doesn't that make those materials profane? Has the Catholic League ever considered the unbelievable kitschy statues made of "resin"- and painted with tacky, pastel colors - that most Catholic bookstores and catalogs promote? Doesn't that cheap, mass-produced stuff demean Jesus Christ? And there is nothign wrong with portraying Jesus (in this manner) anatomically correctly.

The Catholic League, and many (I'm sorry to have to say this) "traditionalist" Christians simply do not understand modern and postmodern art, and the trajectory the art world has taken in the 20th century. And so, they condemn beautiful works of art like this (and it is a very nice looking Christ figure, if you ask me), making themselves look stupid and completely out of touch in the process. Further, they alienate a whole segment of the population (artists)
that they should be trying to reach. Artists like Caravello should be lauded for brininng Christ into the public forum of the art world; not condemned because they are not working with the same materials and in the same era as Poussin.

JP II University

Check this place out. It is a new catholic college that is geared towards preparing students for media, business, and technology careers. These conservative catholic colleges seem to pop up left and right. I guess they have to because the older ones are so wacky anymore.

I want to see an Anglican college formed. An accredited college that is Christ-centered, and whose devotional and worship life is built around the Book of Common Prayer, and the traditions of the English christianity. A college that teaches students to think with a christian mind. Are there any Anglican colleges anywhere in the states? Were there ever plans for one?

REC Orders: Not Invalid... just not recognized

I received an e-mail from Archbishop Haverland (ACC) in response to my post a month or so ago, and he clarified that in the Trinitarian article that I was referring to he never actually said REC orders are not valid, just that they should not be recognized. He said that he was merely holding what was decided by a Lambeth conference with regard to the question of REC orders. So, sorry, archbishop, for misrepresenting you (I told him I'd glady post a retraction). The archbishop obviously holds a view similar to the orthodox who neither confirm nor deny the validity of other churches sacraments; rather, they refuse to recognize them, as it would give credibility to heretics and schismatics (Cyprian of Carthage).

The trouble with all of this, and maybe with the field of theology in general, is that it seems like it can never progress beyond these differences. All of this business about, "Well, I follow Cyprian, and you follow Augustine" becomes simply a diversion and an excuse to not make any progress towards unity or resolving the fundamental problem. I am not complaining about the archbishop, mind you. This is a larger problem that we all face, whether it is deciding how Christ is present in the eucharist, or what to do about the Filoque clause, and so on. We go on and on for centuries talking about these things, and discussing and reviving the same questions, and having the same arguments, rarely making any progress. It is disheartening.

To be sure, there are real theological questions - many of great importance - attached to these things I have mentioned. The answer is not to become "atheological". But there is a difference between holding to a view out of sincere conviction, while at the same time really looking into all of the arguments for and against it, and wrestling with the question with an eye to an eventual solution vs. towing some tired old party line. The goal, I think, is a solution to these problems that divide us. And lots of people talk about how we must do that, and how important it is, but very few actually take the steps to make it happen (even if they are just small steps). There have been a few examples of this here and there, such as when the Catholics and the Lutherans signed their joint declaration on justification a few years back. Now we just need a lot more of that. ARCIC was a step in the right direction too.

Liturgical Silence

The classic Anglican book, Liturgy and Worship (SPCK, ed. Clarke and Harris), has a great chapter on liturgical silence, and discusses it in the context Holy Eucharist. Originally the entire eucharistic liturgy was recited audibly, but at a rather early date, in both and west, the most solemn parts of the liturgy began to be said softly or silently. It was meant to evoke a certain sense of awe and mystery in the worshipper. Various church fathers, such as Cyril of Jeruslam, spoke on this topic. The offering of the eucharist was, according to Cyril, the "greatest hour of trembling", so naturally the tone of the liturgy, and how it was said, began to express this.

Anyone who has done even a little bit of public speaking knows that changing your tempo, tone, and volume are very powerful communication tools. That is what all of the great preachers have done (e.g. just watch a classic Billy Graham sermon from the 50's on TV sometime). So naturally one would do that at the liturgy in appropriate ways. It can also be a pedagogical tool. I was trained to say the Words of Institution softly, but I must confess I like the practice of the clergy of the parish I attended in seminary better, where they said those words loudly and with clarity, in order to emphasize, I think, the Real Presence.
The first time I heard him say those words in that way I knew that he believed in the Real Presence.

Related to this is the whole problem of rushing through the liturgy and not saying the silent prayers in the missal because people find the silences "awkward". Personally, I think they need to just get over that. Silence is the most undervalued thing in the world (besides my art). When we sit through those longish pauses in the liturgy, it helps us slow down and really concentrate on what is happening so we can be more involved in the sacred action, and get more out of it. I think that our churches would be even more reverent and holy places if we sought to slow things down a bit and learned to observe and appreciate the periods of silence and quiet in our worship.

More Priesthood Reflections

Today is the date of my first mass a year ago (Low Sunday). I promised some more simple reflections on life as a priest so here goes...

Being a parish priest pulls you in a million different directions. You have to wear a lot of hats: administrator, teacher, counselor, etc. I spend much of my time throughout the day working on rather mundane things (not surprising, really, since life in general is pretty mundane). For example, I keep a running list of things I tell people on Sunday that I am going to do for them the next week ("I'll check that out, and e-mail you about it tomorrow." "I need to call A.B. and see how his recovery is going.", etc.). So I spend much of my mornings - especially Monday - following up on people, working the phones (updating phone numbers as necessary), sending resources to people, and so on. Then there are logistical things to work out regarding services and activities with other clergy and parishioners. There are sick parishioners to visit, and occasional weekday services to lead. And then there is sermon prep time, Bible study prep time, and other things to prepare for (e.g. I am playing guitar at the homeless ministry soon - so I have pick some songs out and rehearse them.). There are bulletins to make, and Sunday School rooms to decorate. In short, there's lots of different stuff to do... and that is just a small part of it! All of that stuff, however, is pretty mundane and ordinary. There is nothing magical about it, and I don't see visions of the Blessed Mother or Our Lord every other day. It's just... ordinary.

I mention that only to say that some aspirants to the priesthood think that being a priest only involves dressing up in fancy clothes, saying mass, and meditating on whether existence precedes essence. Some aspirants have no interest in serving people (i.e. being a pastor), or going to parish social activities (no matter how hokie they may be). Instead they want to be "ivory tower theologians" who wear a collar. They think that being a priest only involves "Sunday morning high mass". But all of that other, less glamorous stuff is really important, and is a vital part of the ministry; indeed, you can't have a succesful minstry without them. Theological study and reflection, and certainly celebrating the Eucharist is important, but priestly ministry is not consist only of those things. Related to this is the idea that because a person is devoted to the Lord, and has a certain interest in theology, he is automatically called to be ordained. That is not necessarily the case.

So, if you want gobs of thrills and constant whirring and excitement, don't become a priest. If you want to read theological treatises all the time, and refuse to answer the phone or follow up with people; and if you don't want to get out there and minister to someone who doesn't even know what "Anglican" is; and if you don't want to be involved in something that is beneath you, like helping take down the tables and clean up after a parish dinner, then don't become a priest. Because a priest, like St. Paul, must be in a certain sense, "...all things to all people." If you want the honor and glory of saying mass, administering other sacraments, and preaching and teaching the word of God, then you must accept and embrace along with that the more mundane things associated with the ministry.

When tragedy strikes, say nothing?

I am preaching this Sunday at St. Mark's and will spend some time talking about the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech. There are a number of continuing church parishes in that part of Virginia, so I hope they will say something about what happened.

Sadly, I have been to a number of continuing churches where nothing is said from the pulpit about a major national or international tragedy. Mass is not even offered for the sufferers or victims! IMHO, clergy are obligated to comment on such events. People want need to know how God and Jesus Christ relates to what has happened. People have questions, and want to see what light their faith sheds on sufffering and loss.

Reach Out and Touch Faith

Jeff Steel has a link to an article by a Catholic priest which I find very exciting. The priest lists eight principles of what he calls "Evangelical Catholicism". It is the first of these principles that I find the most exciting. Here it is:

" The Lord Jesus Christ is the crucified and risen Savior of all mankind, and no human person can fully understand his life or find his dignity and destiny apart from a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. It is not enough to know who Jesus is; we must know Jesus."

There is unfortunately a lot of baggage that goes with the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". It's too bad, though, because that is a good phrase. It signifies a deep investment and involvment with God the Son. A lot of people think that it cancels out the relationship between the believer and the Church. But I have never thought that. The two actually go together. Like in a family, I have a personal relationship with my father, but I am also part of a larger unit, and have my relationship with my father by being part of this larger unit (the family). It's the same thing here.

I wish more Anglicans had a grasp on what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and what it means to walk with Christ, and to know Him. This is something that our more "evangelical" bretheren can bring to the table. Our parishes would be a lot stronger if peoples' faith became more personal, and if people knew Jesus as they knew their best friend, or their spouse.

It's only dead if you make it dead.

Looks like Rome's chief Latinist may be wrong about B16's "Motu Proprio". But that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong about Latin being a dead language. As many people know, I attended a Roman Catholic seminary, and let me tell you, they do not study Latin at many U.S. Catholic seminaries, neither do they actively promote it... not because they have anything against it, but because there is only so much time one can be in seminary, and only so many subjects a person has studied. At my school most of my classmates were required to take Spanish, because of the huge pastoral need. They didn't take Latin (which was only offered sporadically), or Greek... and much less Hebrew! There just was not enough time to take all of those extra classes. Nowadays, in addition to the ever-present philosophy requirements (though they too have been streamlined quite a bit), Catholic seminarians have to take several semesters of preaching, catechesis, counseling, professional ethics, social justice, etc. in addition to the Biblical studies, Church history, systematic and fundamental theology, etc. And so, there is only so much time available to take other courses. Eventually you have to graduate, and get out there to minister! So is Latin truly dead? Are they just too busy teaching other desperately needed courses to fit it into the schedule? Time will tell, I guess.

I think that a language like Latin or Greek is dead only if you make it dead. A seminarian can always study those langauges on his own, or take a summer course to at least get him going for private study. And when he graduates it is incumbent upon him to stay with those languages and keep using them and studying them, just as he must continue reading and studying theology, scripture, etc. I study my Latin regularly, and use my Greek everytime I prepare sermons, and I do that on purpose (so I don't forget it). That is how a language stays alive. Even if the leadership at Catholic seminaries does not teach the language for lack of time, they can at least create a favorable and enouraging environment to promote the study of it, and urge seminarians to pursue it on their own. We Anglicans, by the way, should also study Latin, even though we have our own liturgical language. It is the theological language of the western Church, and knowing it even on a small level enriches theolgical study and devotion in manifold ways. But again, there are no Latin police out there to make sure we do that. We must do it on our own, so it stays alive to us, and so we can reap its benefits.

Out with the new and in with the old...

There is a lot of talk out there about the possibility of Benedict XVI granting some sort of universal indult for catholic priests to say the old Tridentine mass. Apparently some people think it could happen at any time. On the other hand, I read an article in NOR by Rome's chief Latinist who said that the whole thing was a farce, and that Latin is deader than ever. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

Even though I am a traditionalist, I do not think it would be wise for B16 to allow this, and here's why. There are lots of practical problems that are going to come about as a result of this. First, who is going to teach all of these men to say the old mass properly? It is a lot harder to do than the Novus Ordo mass, and they must be trained to do it correctly. Second, how are they going to do it in newer churches that are not designed for that sort of service? Third, is it going to create even more of a "church-within-a-church"? That is to say, are the traditionalist/Blue Army types going to become even more estranged from their brothers and sisters in Novus Ordo parishes? Fourth, is it going to create strife and factionalism among the clergy? What if you are a young curate, and, as the saying goes, "The curate is always higher than the rector.", you want to do the old mass, but your boss - the rector - says "No, we do the Novus Ordo here." How is that to be resolved? Fiftth, are other Latin language devotions going to be brought back as well, and how will that impact things? Sixth, will this cause a liberal backlash? Those are just a few questions (there are many more) that I think need to be addressed or planned for ("change management" is the business term). If they do not, I predict that a universal indult will do more harm than good.

I think the Roman Catholic Church should cut its losses and just stick with the new mass, only issue stricter guidelines with regard to vesture, music, lay participation, and so on. They could bring back certain things, such as kneeling for most of mass and communion, in order to make a more holy atmosphere without causing a major disruption in peoples' faith and life. And they simply have to consider the average Joe catholic who grew up with the new mass and thinks it is fine.

The Refashioning of Anglicanism

One of things that I find myself doing a lot here at St. Mark's is explaining to parishioners and our gobs of visitors (St. Mark's is kind of like a tourist destination here in Vero Beach) how we are not in communion with TEC and Canterbury. This usually takes these folk by surprise. They can't seem to imagine (or it never occured to them) how one can be Anglican or Episcopalian without being in TEC, or in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. This I find fascinating. It is like saying that a copy machine cannot be a copy machine unless it is made by the Xerox company. And as I have said before, it is like saying that Ford motor company owns the word "sedan". People wrongly think of the corporate structure of the "official" Anglican Communion and the ABC as being of the essence of Anglicanism.

We read these days that the average Anglican is probably is poor black woman in Africa, and how "Anglican" doesn't equal "rich, white, males" (and hasn't for sometime). Anglicanism is global and multi-cultural. This is certainly true. So likewise, being Anglican no longer only means being in communion with TEC and Canterbury (and hasn't for some time), or being part of their revisionist club. As those bodies have, on an official level, long since fallen into heresy in so many ways, we could not be in communion with them even if they paid us (NB: there are many faithful remnant parishes for the time being within these bodies). Our being seperate from these folk is not about being "schismatic", it is about preserving and continuing the orthodox faith. When the leaders of the Church fail to uphold the vows they made at their consecrations - spceifically about "banishing and driving away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word" (BCP, p. 555), others of us must act. By failing to uphold their vows, the leaders of TEC, the CofE, and many other provinces of the "official" Anglican Communion, have shown themselves to be the ones who are schismatic. If they want to ordain women and practicing gays, teach universalism, and so on, then so be it - they can do what they want to in their club. But as for us we will take the orthodox faith in its Anglican expression and continue fulfilling the Great Commission.

Anglicanism is, more than ever before, about an idea. It is about a common, reformed catholic theology and liturgy that is centered on the authority of the scriptures as interpreted by the tradition of the undivided Church and our formularies. Being Anglican is about being faithful stewards of the faith once delivered to the saints. In the long run this will prove to be one of our strengths. The obsession that some have about being in communion with the See of Canterbury is nothing but a distraction, and it is like making the ABC a "pope", or an intrinsic part of what it means to be Anglican. I reject that. The Roman Church can't exist without the pope, but we can certainly exist without being in communion with TEC, the ABC, and their associates.

Radio Interview

Back in January I was on the Rhett Palmer Show here in Vero Beach, where I spoke about life as an artist-priest. Here is a link to the interview. Unfortunately the first half, where I talk a lot about art (and expecially Van Gogh, for some reason), is not on there, but the second half, where I talk more about the priesthood, is there.

You will also notice how I defend the Roman Catholic Church during the show... so I don't ever want to hear anything about how I am "anti-catholic", or anything like that!

Approaching One Year

The first anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood is coming up (April 15th), so I thought I would, over the next couple weeks, offer some reflections on my priestly ministry so far.

The one thing that comes to mind immediately, and that I have been thinking about a lot over the past few days, is how God has used just about every single talent and experience I have had in my brief life for His glory in the context of my ministry. I used to be an IT consultant, a middle school teacher, an administrator, a salesman, and a short order cook to name just a few things, and each one of those jobs has in some way prepared me for fulltime parish ministry. I am constantly using the skills and principles learned from those jobs in my day-to-day life as a priest. The same goes for my musical and artistic experience. Who would have known that I would be using many of the songs my old rockabily used to play out at smoky bars in Baltimore City to minister to men and women in nursing homes, homeless ministries, church fellowship events, and more. As for my art degree (trust me, you can do a lot with an art major), I use those skills to create posters and signage for my Sunday School class, I have used it in summer camp settings, selling work to people, as a basis for evangelizism, and more. Every little thing I have done in life has been, in a way, a preparation for priestly ministry. Of course, I did not know that at the time, as many of those jobs were dead end, and because the band wasn't very good, and I didn't sell gobs and gobs of art. At the time, much of that stuff seemed like a waste of time. But hindsight is 20/20. Now I see how God was preparing me for His service. I would never have thought that some of those dead-end jobs and seemingly useless talents would be so useful day in and day out as a priest.

The other side of this is that all Christians - not just priests - should strive to serve God with every inch of his being. If God has given us some talent, or life experience, we should always be asking ourselves, "How can I serve God with this?" We need to be on the lookout for ways we can use that gift or skill to serve God. It may seem like a big waste, but if God has you doing it, then there is a purpose for it. It is to help us grow in holiness and righteousness, and part of that is figuring out how we can use it for God's glory.

For those contemplating going into fulltime Christian ministry - whether lay or ordained - I would encourage you to be patient if you are struggling through some dead-end job, or low time in your life. If you are faithful in these small ways, and patient, you will see how God has been preparing you in little steps here and there for ministry in the name of Jesus Christ.

I Dream of Jeanie

Fr. Jones has an interesting piece on the Federation of Anglican Chruches over on his blog. It seems that Abp. Haverland of the ACC has declared the people and churches associated with FACA to be "neo-Anglicans". His beef is primarily with the REC and the supposed "invalidity" of their orders (an issue that has been discussed many times on many blogs, and that I will not go into now), and the AMiA, which has female clergy "grandmothered" in (his words). I am not going to offer my own reflections on those remarks, as I believe Fr. Jones has done an excellent job addressing them.

What amazes me is that men like Haverland seem to want to snap their fingers and instantly have laity and clergy have uniform beliefs on every single issue, and have a unified province. He says, "We desire the highest possible level of cooperation and communion." But you don't get there overnight. Now, if he had a little bottle with "I Dream of Jeanie" inside of it, he could uncork the bottle, let her out, and have her fold her arms and move her head, and instantly bring a unified province about. But I don't think he has an "I Dream of Jeanie" bottle on his desk. So it's going to take a little longer to bring about unity. It takes little steps like this. It is easy to tear something down and destroy it; it is easy to divide (as the history of the ACC has shown over and over again). But it takes a long time to build something new. The great cathedrals of Europe took years to build - sometimes hundreds, but they could be destroyed in an hour or less. Let me put it another way: there will never be unity if we do not get together in a safe forum of goodwill and charity. The "North Korea"/isolationist approach to ecumenism - which certain jurisdictions have used over the years - really doesn't produce results. This is just plain old common sense. The Federation is a step in the right direction. It is not the "new united province" in its final form. The Federation allows us to work together in ways that we can work together now. Again, this is just common sense.

Alfred Hope Patten and the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham

At the recommendation of Fr. Chandler Holder Jones, I read the biography of Alfred Hope Patten, recently published by SCM Press. It is a great book full of interesting information about Hope Patten and his associates, and all of the triumphs and failures associated with reestablishing the medieval shrine. Although he was marginalized during his lifetime for his beliefs, history has judged him to be one of the most important figures in the CofE of the 20th century, as Walsingham is now hugely succesful, and appeals to people of every type of churchmanship.

I think that the book is especially interesting from a planning and development perspective. How one man could bring about the restoration of the shrine, and raise the moral and financial support from various people to make it happen, is truly amazing. He established the shrine so it would be free from the control of hostile "protestant-minded" bishops, but also made it such that it could never be taken out of the CofE. He carefully and skillfully navigated the sometimes stormy waters of the CofE in the early part of the 20th century, when people strongly disagreed about matters of ceremonial and liturgy.

Regardless of whether or not you support the shrine and what it stands for, or if you support spikey anglo-catholicism, this is an inspiring book to read if you want to do something big, and make a dream a reality.