The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

Several months ago I took exception to something posted on the Bishop of Buckingham’s blog, and in the debate which ensued invited him to come and spend a day in the parish. To his credit, and our mutual benefit, he accepted and that day was today!

Thus at 9am I met +Alan at the train station and introduced him to our parish. The early morning was spent ’setting the scene’, as I explained the local history, tradition of our church, parish demographics etc.. We did this whilst walking the streets. A detour was made to call in at the bustling workshop for ‘Camden Road the Musical’- the Bishop was very excited by this project and I think we have sold our first ticket! We also called in at the Pre-school where the Bishop was asked to judge an ‘Easter bonnet’ competition! I am glad he did this as the responsibility always frightens me! The Bishop was very interested to hear about the preschool and our plans to transform our tired hall into a thriving community centre. He wishes us every success in the implementation of this vision and has taken a business plan home with him. (Photograph of the bonnetts to be updated later as they are on the mobile phone!)

At 11.15am the Bishop joined in the recitation of the Rosary. Due to the presence of a guest I decided to ‘unveil’ our Lady for the duration of this service. My reason being that Rosary before a bagged head might seem particularly strange to the uninitiated!:

After Rosary, the Angelus and Low Mass were offered at the Lady Chapel Altar and we then shared lunch. I must pause to congratulate the congregation here. I thought it would be the usual half dozen or so who come on a Tuesday, but in the end nearly thirty turned up in support of our parish!! This was really excellent as it allowed the Bishop to meet the people who really matter. Listening to your voices explain why the Anglo-Catholic tradition is so important is far more powerful and pertinent than letting me speak for you. I know the Bishop found this a useful and informative excercise. I was particularly delighted to hear him say to somebody that this was ‘clearly a parish in which each person is valued for who they are’. Such inclusivity is not something others always understand about us from the outside.

After lunch we toured the school and there was an opportunity to meet Headteacher and staff. There was a lot of conversation about the injustices of the town’s catchment areas and what the church might do to serve the community better. The Bishop was very taken by the very strong relationship between church and school, and rejoiced in the ‘joint vision’ which we have.

The children were a credit as always and it was a fantastic place to end the tour of the parish. I especially love this picture which captures Mrs. Anderson’s delighting in a rather outrageous comment made by the parish priest!

The day ended with tea in the Vicarage and a chance to chat things over. For my part I was taken by how much more I had in common with +Alan than one might assume based solely on the evidence of our blogs! The internet is a wonderful tool but it can be a dangerous one too. If I am honest it was far easier to talk with him, and really understand him, face to face than comment to comment online! Written text is all well and good but the ‘human element’ can be missing.

Something we agreed on was that there is not enough interaction between Christians of different traditions. The bishop rightly highlighted that one of the regretable consequences of the ‘Act of Synod’ is that we Catholics have been bundled into a clique. We are not always visible to those in the wider Diocese and this can have negative consequences. More days spent like this would be a good thing for many. Anglo-Catholics need to take this criticism on the chin for it is valid! How can we engage with the wider Church more effectively?

Another point that kept cropping up was centred around authentic holiness. The Bishop detected, and was moved by, a very real devotion in the church. Such a thing cannot be made, it is only ever grown over a great many years. He likened it to a priest of our tradition he knows who is simply effective by being holy! I suggested that though such holiness cannot be made we can cultivate the right soil in which it is grown. This was a useful dialogue as it led to the Bishop understanding that there is a need for Anglo-Catholics to be granted a fair share in the garden of the wider church in which such soil may exist! Sadly however he is not a Synod man and will have no say in the final decisions made there. Indeed he admitted to not really knowing what stage proceedings were at! I must say this shocked me rather. When your future hangs in the balance you assume all others understand the full implications…but I guess it is only human that others less concerned with such issues do not follow closely. But if Bishops are not clued up what about those on Synod itself? Hmmm I do feel that misinformation and lack of understanding may end up being our undoing far more than doctrinal difference!

Finally the Bishop gave me God’s blessing before being bundled back on a train bound for Buckingham. It was a day full of theological reflection and debate which leaves the head buzzing! But it was a rich day and a happy day. I am very grateful to Bishop Alan for spending time with us, and I am delighted he left the parish with a better understanding of our situation. He goes with our prayers and best wishes as a brother in Christ. How wonderful that we CAN still have our differences within the Church but allow them to lead us to places of deeper unity and understanding.

I am grateful to Geoff Copus (pictured with myself and the previous mayor) who has been digging into the archives again and unveiling information regarding the formation of this wonderful parish. As many will know, S. Barnabas was carved out of the more protestant S. James parish. S. Barnabas caused huge controversy in its early days as it unashamedly embraced the ideals of the Tractarian Movement (the origins of Anglo-Catholicism). Protestant Tunbridge Wells found itself more disgusted than ever at the ‘Popish’ goings on! So much so that only one local cleric was in attendance at its consecration, the others staying away in protest.

What is particularly interesting from this latest research is that we discover how the Additional Curate’s Society was instrumental in paying the stipend of the original priests. How perfect that all these years later we are offering something back to them with our Lent Appeal!

A final point of note is to see how the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time was clever enough to see the disgusting manner in which the parish boundary was drawn up. A move which deliberately ushered the poor residents of Tunbridge Wells into a ghetto and left the parish with not a single road in the more prosperous regions.

Geoff’s findings are found below:

Church Commissioners’ file ECE/7/1/57391/1 pt. 1

Brief extracts relating to the fight to establish St. Barnabas’ parish.

28 Feb. 1880 – Archbishop Tait wrote that he was “quite willing to consent to the formation of the new District provided it is only taken out of St. James’s parish.”

11 March 1880 – a meeting of the Estates Committee was told that the estimated population of the proposed new district was 3,000, the existing Mission Church (St. Stephen’s) seats 200. A site for a new Church has been purchased [this was I think in Vernon Road, subsequently sold]. There was no parsonage house. It is asked that the first presentation be assigned to the Rev. C.R. Pearson with the Rev. H.W. Hitchcock, and the patronage thereafter assigned to Keble College, Oxford.

Two of the Trustee Patrons of St. James’s church had expressed their objections to the proposed District – they were Canon Hoare and Mr. John Deacon of Mabledon. The Archbishop consents to the idea and the Board should frame a scheme under “The New Parishes Act.”

6 March 1880 – Canon Hoare wrote to enquire whether a new district can be formed without any communication with the Patrons of St. James’s parish.

The commissioners responded that when they have advanced the matter to the point where (as directed by Statute) Notices of the proposals can be given to the Patrons and Incumbent of the Cure, copies of the draft proposals will be sent to the Patrons and the Incumbent of St. James’ and they will be invited to express their views.

19 June 1880 – letter from the Rev. C.R. Pearson, from 12 Esplanade, Guernsey, stating that he will be away from Tunbridge Wells for about 5 weeks [those were the days!] but mail will be forwarded and answered.

9 Dec. 1880 – the Commissioners have approved a draft scheme for effecting the constitution and assigning the Patronage to the Rev. C.R. Pearson and the Rev. H.W. Hitchcock for the first term, with remainder to Keble College.

18 December 1880 – the third Patron of St. James’ is Arthur Wellesley Ward Esq. of 40 Park Street, Grosvenor Square, London [the son of John Ward who developed the Calverley Estate].

4 January 1881 – a letter from Arthur Wellesley Ward states “I have no objection to the constitution of the intended District nor to the plan of vesting the first presentation in Mr. Pearson, and the Patronage in Keble College.”

5 January 1881 – the well-known rant from Canon Hoare objecting in the strongest possible manner to the creation of the new District.

6 January 1881 – a further letter from Canon Hoare asking that the clause in his previous letter stating that “I do not believe there is a house in the proposed district in which a domestic servant is kept” should be erased – “my opinion is not changed, but it is obvious that I cannot prove it.”

John Deacon also wrote from Grantham House, Putney Heath, S.W., referring the Commissioners to his letter of 21 October 1879 which had objected strongly to the proposed new district as being “unnecessary and inexpedient” etc. – he felt that it would be sufficient to add an aisle to St. James’s church, as originally proposed.

19 January 1881 – a letter from Archibald Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he states –

“The only objection which appears to me to be of real weight in deciding the question is the one numbered II in the letter from Canon Hoare, where he points out that the proposed division may result in separating all the poor from the rich, with the present parish.

I think it would be well, before the scheme is proceeded with, that careful enquiry should be made on the spot as to whether this would really be the result. When you have been able to look into this matter I shall be glad to hear from you again.”

22 February 1881 – letter from the Rev. C.R. Pearson in response, stating among other points –
“it was the first thing taken in hand by myself and the Committee working with me to secure an endowment for the proposed new District of St. Barnabas….money was invested in ground rents now £100 per annum (eventually producing some £400) and the Commissioners will add £50 per annum……..At the outset before St. Barnabas’ is built there is a prospect of a Grant of £50 a year towards a Curate from the Additional Curates Society….”

This letter was forwarded to the Commissioners with the comment that the Archbishop considered it on the whole satisfactory, and he has no further objection to make.

One of the oddities in planning school worship is that, due to school holidays, you are forced to abandon the Kalendar. Thus yesterday witnessed our final Mass of term in which we looked ahead to Holy Week…whilst recalling that we were doing so on the feast of the Annunciation! Confusing perhaps but needs must. In the end I have to say it ended up being quite wonderful. The behaviour was brilliant, the children focused and the work on display of the very highest standard.

Special mention must go to Oak Class and Mrs Skett who had devised a brilliant presentation using 7 Easter eggs. Each opened to reveal an item relating to the Passion narrative. Once each had been revealed, and an explanation given, the whole class shouted out the great eternal truth: ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again!’.

As you see the first egg contained a tiny palm branch and a corner of fabric. This helped tell of the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The second egg contained a tiny portion of unleavened bread, this helped tell of the Last Supper and the gift of the sacrament.

The third egg held some twisted thorns (not stinging nettles as one child suggested!). This led to a reflection on the torture of Christ. The fourth contained a crucifix, a poignant reminder of Good Friday. The fifth egg held stone and spoke of the tomb with its stone rolled aside.

The penultimate egg held spices, reminding us of the women on the first Easter morn. And the final egg? Well that was empty – a tremendous sign of hope and a promise of resurrection!!

Well done to all. It was a most happy and devotional experience.

This photograph of our parish image of ‘Mother and Child’ seems a good introduction as I reflect on yesterday’s homily, which began with controversy as I denounced every card in the modern world stating ‘Happy Mother’s Day’. Why? Because there does not seem much to applaud in simply ‘being’ a mother; all that is required is a healthy reproductive system and a willing partner (neither seem in short supply in the modern world!) Whereas a card entitled ‘Happy Mothering Sunday’ shifts the celebration to the actual act of mothering; the nurturing, caring, loving, sacrifice and support that every GOOD mother should be offering to their child.

It seemed appostie (but staggeringly unoriginal!) to look to the Blessed Virgin Mary as exemplar par excellence in this field. We considered 4 aspects of her ‘mothering’, found in the Gospels, and considered how they might guide us in our day. For there can be little doubt, when we look to the modern world, that traditional ‘mothering’ is a skill chronically undervalued and therefore on the decline. The majority of our individualistic society simply struggle to grasp what sacrificial Mothering really entails.

Firstly we looked to Mary’s willingness to sacrifice for her child, found in such accounts as the flight to Egypt. Mary always put Jesus first, even stepping aside for his new family ‘the disciples’ when the time came. We need mothers (and fathers) in our day to buck the ’selfish’ trend found at the heart of society and put children first. We must learn from Mary and offer our offspring time, energy, resources and attention.

Secondly we considered how Mary raised Jesus in the faith, seen in the visits to the temple (even re-entering dangerous territory when Herod was still at the helm). Do we go out of our way to model faith for our children? Are we teaching them to pray? Do they know the staple prayers of the Christian diet, the ‘Hail Mary’, ‘Our Father’ and ‘Glory Be’? Can they look to us and SEE that we are living out the faith in the home and not just at church? Can they tell that faith is a serious priority in our life? Nothing will revive the church more than living out the faith with passion to our current generation of children.

Thirdly we looked at Mary’s consistency. She was there for Jesus to the end, even standing with crushed heart at the foot of the Cross. And how much that unwavering faith must have meant to Jesus! Mothers (and Fathers) in our day must work hard to ensure that our lives are as stable and secure as possible- so that we can offer our children consistency. For a positive parental consistency is the bedrock of a happy childhood. Thus the greatest gift a parent can offer is to work extra hard at their marital relationship and not only on their relationship with their child.

Fourthly we considered how Mary was an encourager to Christ. At the wedding in Cana it was she who prompted Christ’s first miracle, gently pushing him to the fore. As his mother she knew that his hour had come and in a desire to see him grow – she moves him out of his comfort zone and into the place of challenge and growth. Do we do the same for our children? Do we nudge them into areas of growth, concerning ourselves with their mental, physical and spiritual development?

When we look to the perfect example of Mary we must do so with joy not sorrow. If our own parenting is far from perfect, if mistakes have been made in the past, this should not dismay us and cause us to give up. Rather we must look to Mary for encouragment and hope. We pray for the grace to grow like her and in the meantime ‘our best’ will be enough. For the reality is that no mother (or father) is perfect and cannot be this side of heaven. And so I end with a photograph of a non-perfect mother whom I love- my own. And I love her knowing that her imperfection as a mother is in no way different to mine as a father…and yours…and hers… and his…etc! This was taken when Jemima was only eight months old.