St Nicholas, Santa Claus or Father Christmas? Are they the same people? Does it matter?

Who was he? A real early Christian saint, an anthropomorphic figure from the pre-Christian pagan past, transformed into a Christian saint, or a Victorian invention?

Well, I’ve found a lovely site here which will answer all your burning St Nicholas/Santa Claus questions. It also attempts to reconstruct his face from early iconography using modern computer modelling techniques. And he turns out to have a white beard and moustache. Having spent a lot of time with Orthodox icons I tend towards the ancient belief that the facial images in these icons are often based on real people (like mediaeval carvings), probably the actual person they represent.

All the information here has been taken from the above site, and from wiki

St Nicholas was a real Christian, living somewhere around the third century in an area that was then part of Greece, now Turkey. He was appointed bishop even though he was not ordained at the time. He exemplified a passionate belief in Jesus Christ and carrying out the gospel commands to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, give to the poor, protect the weak, stand up for justice and so on. He inherited wealth and gave it away to the poor. He was famous for his holy lifestyle and miracles.

Unusually his relics were kept together, and their location known. They have survived to the present day and been subjected to forensic examination. So unlike some of the other early saints and Apostles we do have a firm historical connection between the physical person and the legends.

He had a reputation for secret gift giving. The best known early legend responsible for his association with gifts is about bags of gold mysteriously appearing to three young women who needed dowries. The bags were thrown through a window, or possibly down a chimney, or even fell into a stocking drying over the chimney. Hence the Santa coming down the chimney legends. He died on December 6th, and so maybe he was especially associated with giving gifts at Christmas time. The three bags of gold are the origin of the symbol of pawnbrokers – three golden balls – to represent redeeming something of value, as the three young women were redeemed from lives of prostitution.

During his lifetime and after his death many miracles were attributed to him and even during his lifetime he became a person venerated for his holiness and intercessory powers. His cult spread throughout the East, Russia, Mediterranean and beyond. He is especially venerated in the East and in Russia.

He is still credited with miracles, with many 20th Century accounts.

After his death a liquid called manna formed in his tomb and was credited with many healing miracles. His tomb at Myra became a place of pilgrimage.

The 17th Century Puritans were also to blame as it seems that their attempts to stamp out the Christmas festivities led to these re-emerging in disguised forms. Bit of an own goal there then.

But the personification of Christmas can be traced back to at least the 15th Century in England. Apparently the title Father Christmas is more specifically English, not related to Santa Claus, and has a different provenance. Originally the English Father Christmas figure was dressed in green, which may suggest an association with the Green Man. (I just made that up, I didn’t find any specific reference to the Green Man. It was just an association with the green clothing). Red and green seem to have been the liturgical colours of the season since way back.

There is also a suggestion of an association with the ancient Viking God Odin.

Nowadays Santa Claus and Father Christmas are used to mean the same person and they are all linked to St Nicholas.

There is a suggestion that by the 19th Century there were still post harvest celebrations rooted in the ancient past which were raucous, chaotic, somewhat violent, bacchanalian events, and the development of the modern Christmas rituals were part of an effort to civilise these. Perhaps they still linger in the October/November Halloween type rituals. I do find it interesting how these things carry on through the centuries.

Santa Claus belongs to childhood;
St. Nicholas models for all of life.

Santa Claus, as we know him, developed to boost Christmas sales—the commercial Christmas message;
St. Nicholas told the story of Christ and peace, goodwill toward all—the hope-filled Christmas message.

Santa Claus encourages consumption;
St. Nicholas encourages compassion.

Santa Claus appears each year to be seen and heard for a short time;
St. Nicholas is part of the communion of saints surrounding us always with prayer and example.

Santa Claus flies through the air—from the North Pole;
St. Nicholas walked the earth—caring for those in need.

Santa Claus, for some, replaces the Babe of Bethlehem;
St. Nicholas, for all, points to the Babe of Bethlehem.

Santa Claus isn’t bad;
St. Nicholas is just better.

J. Rosenthal & C. Myers

Have you been good this year?

Happy Christmas.

The first thought that popped into my head when I read Caroline’s request for Luke in October was ‘Oh, how difficult, how boring, I would prefer to do a real person’. So first I had to spend some time wondering where that thought came from.

Clearly Luke (whoever he was) was a real person so why was my instinctive reaction that studying the life of the author of one of the Gospels – a version that is distinctively different from the other three – , the author of the earliest history of the church after the resurrection, (Acts of the Apostles) and a close companion of Paul; is going to be boring, and somehow not real?

Perhaps my answer shows up a trap for all of us. We are so familiar with the stories they have lost meaning. We think we know all about them, we don’t realise how our ideas have been shaped by the teaching we have received over the years. Familiarity breeds contempt. We have lost sight of the idea that these were real people with real lives because it was so long ago and they and their lives are both so familiar and so strange to us. They have become like characters in fairy stories or myths and legends.

Plus, we don’t know too much about the Twelve and those who knew them. They kept their own personalities and affairs firmly subordinated to the task of talking about Jesus. Apart from their involvement with Jesus they were not important enough to be much recorded in other history. So I thought it would be difficult. We know very little about Luke. He was not one of the Twelve, other early writings do not refer to him much and we do not know how he fell in with the early Christians. Tradition has it he never married.

What we know, including his name, is gleaned from internal references in Acts and Paul’s letters with the assumption that the Luke referred to there is the person who wrote the Gospel and Acts.

“Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.” Letter of Paul to the Colossians 4:14

The internal evidence of the writings leads some scholars to believe he was not a Jew and therefore the only non-Jewish New Testament author. One source said he was a Greco-Syrian, another a Roman. He definitely had a fluent grasp of the Greek language.

Scholars vary in their opinion as to whether Luke’s Gospel and Acts were written by the same person or even by a companion of Paul. This site outlines some of the arguments for and against and Wiki But there is no other contender, if not Luke then the authoris unknown.

Wiki suggests he was one of the seventy two (Luke 10:1-24). In Acts he makes it clear when he is personally part of the narrative, and in the Gospel that he is recording events he did not witness. I would have thought if he was one of the seventy two he would have mentioned it.

Tradition has it he died at the age of 84 in Boeotia (in Greece).

“Luke makes many casual references throughout his writings (especially in Acts) to local customs and practices, often with demonstrable and noteworthy precision. …(examples given)…….shows either that (1) he wrote fairly close to the events he described, or (2) he was describing persons and events on which he had good information, or (3) he was an expert historical novelist, with an ear for the authentic-sounding detail.”

from this site which makes the case for Lukes authenticity as someone writing very close to the time of the events described.

Acts is an account of the early church and its characters but I have just realised, writing this that Luke makes little or no personal comment about any of them. He makes no comment on his own opinions of anyone’s, including Paul’s, character or actions, although he witnessed them and knew Paul and others well. The closest he gets is when he describes Barnabas as ‘a good man, fully of the Holy Spirit and faith’ Acts 11:24, Later, Barnabas and Paul quarrel but all Luke says is ‘They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.’ Acts 15: 39.

Paul was not the easiest person to be around. When we considered Barnabas we saw how Paul fell out with nearly everyone. Yet Luke stayed with him.

“Do your best to come to me quickly, for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me.” 2 Timothy 4:9-11.

But I have always had a problem with the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Did this really happen? Did God really kill them both on the spot, or was there some other explanation? If it was God, what does it tell us about Jesus/God? Rabbi Lionel Blue had the same problems with this story and it was a part of his decision to remain in his Jewish faith despite his Christian spiritual experience. “The extremism’ (of the New Testament) was also a turn off…..You could either regard it as overblown religious rhetoric, in which case it could mean anything, or politely ignore it.” ‘My Affair with Christianity’ Lionel Blue. Interestingly God didn’t seem to mind and continued to be friends with Lionel!

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” It all sounds very reassuringly sensible doesn’t it? Perhaps Theophilus is puzzled and needs confirmation of the truth of what he is being told by someone he trusts to be of sound mind and judgement. A person of standing in the community. “An orderly account”, carefully researched, based on eye witness evidence, just what we need.

There were a multitude of fantastical rumours and stories flying around which Theophilus might have heard or read about. He didn’t have access to the complete final canon of the Old and New Testaments, in various translations and paraphrases. It was still an incomplete and largely oral tradition.

Luke then launches into an unbelievable story of a visit by an angel to an obscure Jewish priest and a miraculous birth to his even more obscure elderly wife. Followed by an even more improbable story of another angel visitation to a young virgin who then gives birth without human sexual intercourse with her fiancé and husband. Luke is a doctor. An educated person. These are not important people. Not the professional or officer classes. Not even B list celebs. Just very ordinary respectable working people like you and me. Well, me anyway. You may be more important than me, it’s not hard. Anyway, hardly pausing for breath we have a few more extraordinary events, followed by the birth of a child to the young virgin girl in a stable, attended by shepherds, an angel messenger, and a large host of angels praising God.

It goes on and on like this. It’s a real page turner. The most prosaic, sane prose style, worthy of an old fashioned English GP (I like to think of him having a calm, wise, confidence inspiring bedside manner), describing frankly unbelievable events of the life, death, and resurrection of the man Jesus. Most of them involving very ordinary people. So unbelievable that even many Christians have found all sorts of reasons for not believing Luke really meant a lot of it, factually I mean. Or that he was not really a proper historian, more a hagiographer. See the sites linked to earlier.

Rabbi Blue continues ‘many years later I met biblical scholars who tried to explain the Gospels in a different way. Things weren’t what they seemed and you needed a lot of scholarship to discover what they were really trying to say. I’d heard the same story from Jewish scholars trying to justify every nook in the Old Testament too.’

I don’t believe that the Gospels were written only for very scholarly people to interpret and explain to us. Jesus did not spend his time preaching only to academics, although often his preaching was hard to understand.

Luke presents a genealogy for Jesus showing through his father Joseph he was descended from David, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Noah and finally Adam, ‘the son of God’ (my bold).  But he qualifies this by saying that ‘He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph’ Luke 3:23).

He finishes with Jesus resurrection after dying a shameful criminal’s death on a cross. Deserted by nearly everyone. Finally Jesus ascends into heaven and his disciples worship him.

“When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.”

I wonder what Theophilus made of it?

We don’t know who Theophilus was. In Greek it means ‘friend of God’. Theophilus could be a name of a person. Or it could be an honorary title, meaning everyone who reads the book. And one tradition has it that it was used in that latter sense by Luke. Perhaps in that strange way the Bible has of being both written at and about an historical moment in time and also for eternity; it is both. Luke wrote to someone called Theophilus and it turns out is also writing across the centuries to me, his dear friend of God. He has carefully investigated everything for me. No wonder it gives that sense of being addressed personally when I read the first verses of Luke.

And what about you most excellent friend of God,

what do you make of it?

Luke’s Gospel

Acts of the Apostles

Another saint with a link to i-church. The present Bishop of Dorchester is an i-church trustee. This is one of the things about the Church I think is very valuable; these links with those who have gone before. This sense of continuity.

These early missions in Britain are very bound up in the lives and politics of the kings and kingdoms of the time. We saw this at work in the life of Aidan of Lindisfarne. Birinus’ life also demonstrates this.

“The King was, at the time, desperately trying to finalise an alliance with the powerful King Oswald of Northumbria. Together he hoped they could defeat the hated Mercians. Cynegils arranged negotiations at his palace in Easthampstead (Berkshire), and the King of Northumbria travelled down to meet him. On reaching Finchampstead (Berkshire), the King became thirsty and prayed for water. The Holy Dozell’s (or St.Oswald’s) Well instantaneously sprang up and flowed fresh water. At the Royal talks the only sticking point was that Oswald was a Christian and would not ally himself to any pagan. So the King of Wessex decided it was time to be baptised into this new church. Oswald agreed the alliance could then be cemented by his marriage to the daughter of the southern King.   Birinus was sent for and, at the nearby Fountain Garth (Bracknell, Berkshire), Cynegils was baptised immediately.” from a good account with lots of colourful history.

Not long afterwards many of his courtiers wished to convert and Birinus arranged for a mass baptismal ceremony.

I think the King Oswald referred to above is Aidan’s King Oswald.

a short account

There is so much to say, yet we know very little about Benedict as a person. The only writing we have is his rule. A very small book with a lot of information about the ordering of reciting the psalms in the daily offices. The discipline of the daily offices is one of the major Benedictine traditions.

He is titled ‘Patron of Europe’ and his Rule and the influence of the communities founded upon it are credited with preserving and shaping western civilisation after the fall of the Roman Empire. He is considered the founder of western monasticism.

“What we mean to establish is a school for the Lord’s service” Prologue. At the end, Ch 73 he calls the Rule a ‘small rule which is only a beginning’.

The Rule is steeped in scriptural quotes and allusions. It is completely rooted in scripture.

Much of the book is about seemingly mundane things; how much to eat, when to sleep, what sort of clothes to wear.

The rest is about managing community life, the appointment, duties and responsibilities of the Community leaders. Founded on and governed by the principle of servant leadership, and still a good model for any community, religious or not – in my opinion.

Benedictine Oblates

So I decided to concentrate on the things about the Rule that have influenced me, and not on the details of Benedict’s life. I haven’t put many links. Put the Rule of St Benedict into a search engine or follow the links here and you will find a lifetime’s Benedictine surfing.

Today there are still many Benedictine Communities and branches who follow the same Rule such as the Cistercians. Many people in lay life follow the Rule in their daily lives, adapting it as appropriate. Some become oblates with particular Benedictine Communities, having a special relationship with that community and undertaking some form of novitiate, while remaining in their ordinary lay lives.

I first came across the Rule when I was a new Christian and at first I didn’t think it had much to say to me. An interesting historical document but that was all. Certainly some things have not survived cultural progress, such as physical punishment of children.

When the pupil is ready the teacher appears.

A particular translation of the Rule spoke to me on a quiet day with an Anglican Benedictine Community. St Benedict’s Rule by Patrick Barry, here and here, former Abbot of Ampleforth. It has a very useful introduction. All quotes from the Rule here are taken from this translation. Another good modern translation is by Abbot Stuart at Mucknell Abbey, this has the advantage of being much cheaper.

I think one of the reasons I was so taken with the contemporary translation is precisely the contemporary, inclusive language. Benedict wrote in Latin, but not the ancient formal, literary classical Latin, he wrote the ordinary colloquial Latin of his day.

The Rule combines firmness of principle and flexibility in application. Benedict is constantly saying that whatever he advises should be adapted as necessary to local circumstances. He starts by saying “we hope to impose nothing harsh or burdensome….it is a way which is bound to seem narrow to start with. But as we progress,….our hearts will warm to its vision..” Prologue.

Benedictines read a portion of the Rule daily. Oblates are usually expected to do the same.

I found it started making sense and far from stifling spontaneity gave an order and structure within which spontaneity could flourish more fruitfully. I had been confusing spontaneity with disorder and chaos.

“The Latin word ‘regula’, normally translated ‘rule’ has its etymological origins in the word for ‘trellis’, a framework to enable ordered growth. These are not ‘rules and regulations’ but a framework upon which a willing soul can grow and flourish by God’s good grace.” (I am not sure where I found this quote – all I know is it is not mine!)

Obedience. Which is not the same thing as it is for, say, a member of the armed forces. It should not be about efficiency, or control. Preferring to do what someone else wants rather than what we want to do ourselves, is a sure sign of love. Jesus was completely obedient to his Father, because he loved him perfectly. This vow is about the self-abandonment of love. The freedom of obedience.

“Obedience is of such value that it should be shown not only to the superior but all members of the community should be obedient to each other” Ch 71.

The fact that it can be and has been abused is more to do with human frailty, not the original intention of St Benedict.

Stability, at a purely practical level, is interpreted as a promise by the monk not to pack up and start again in another monastery when things get difficult. Benedictines do not join a centralized Order; they join a particular community under an Abbot and the Rule. Stability is a decision, before the event, to face up to difficulties with the help of God and our brothers.

‘Conversatio Morum’ Which is difficult to translate, but it would mean something like ‘Changing the way you live’. A literal translation might be ‘living the monastic life with fidelity’. Conversatio

The above and some of the following is based on material found here.

The Rule was written for laypeople. It is meant for everyone. The Rule is a means of organising the domestic life of people who wish to live as fully as possible the type of life presented in the Gospel. Its primary purpose is to enable the good conduct of relationships for people trying to devote themselves to Christian life in community.

“My words are addressed to you especially, whoever you may be, whatever your circumstances, who turn from the pursuit of your own self-will and ask to enlist under Christ, who is Lord of all…” Prologue to Rule

Chapter 57 also deals with the management of those with special creative gifts. They must exercise these with humility, for the good of the community, not self-aggrandisement. “If any of them conceive an exaggerated idea of their competence … imagining that the value of their work puts the monastery in their debt, they should be forbidden further exercise of their skills and not allowed to return to their workshops unless they respond with humility to this rebuke and the superior permits them to resume their work.”

Although private ownership is strictly forbidden by the Rule, Benedict did not intend that his monks as a community should live upon the alms of the charitable. In fact, he considered it essential that the monks should earn their own living, preferably by the work of their hands. “Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore all the community must be occupied at definite times in mutual labour and at other times in lectio divina.” Ch 48. The purpose of communal ownership was to restrict the requirements of the individual to what was necessary and simple, and to ensure that the use and administration of the corporate possessions should be in strict accord with the teaching of the Gospel.

Also in Ch 57 Benedict says that there must be no dishonest practice in selling monastic goods. “In fixing the prices for these products care should be taken to avoid any taint of avarice. What is asked by the monastery should be somewhat lower than the price demanded by secular workshops so that God may be glorified in everything.”

While the individual monk was poor, the monastery was to be able to give alms, not to be compelled to seek them. They should be able to “relieve the poor, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, to bury the dead, to help the afflicted, to entertain all strangers.”

The Benedictine ideal of poverty is therefore quite different from the Franciscan.

The Rule and its later applications make provision for Communities to be accountable, and for errors of Community leadership and conduct to be rectified, but it is a ‘bottom up’ hierarchy, not top down.

Abbots and Abbesses are elected and there is provision for their removal if their conduct warrants it.

St Benedict makes provision for everyone to have a say when important decisions are made. “it often happens that the Lord makes the best course clear to one of the youngest.” Ch 3.

I think part of the enduring power of the Rule is that is so firmly grounded in human experience. Benedict did not start with a theory of community which he then tried to apply. He applied the lessons he learned leading communities.

His first experience of leading a community did not go well. When their Abbot died they invited him to be their Abbot based on his growing reputation for holiness living as a hermit. “Benedict was acquainted with the life and discipline of the monastery, and knew that “their manners were diverse from his and therefore that they would never agree together: yet, at length, overcome with their entreaty, he gave his consent”. The experiment failed; the monks tried to poison him, and he returned to his cave.” here

He found himself having to deal with the communities that grew up around him and the Rule is based on his own experience. We find lots of practical advice; such as latecomers to Chapel Prayers still have to come inside, although they have to stand at the back and cannot take part. If they are left outside they will start gossiping and wandering off. They might even go back to bed!

However, St Benedict also stresses that the rule should not be strictly applied to the very young, the old and the sick. “They should not be strictly bound to the provisions of the Rule….They should receive loving consideration” Ch 37.

There is a Roman Catholic on-line Benedictine Community World Community for Christian Meditation, founded by John Main OSB. Its current Director Lawrence Freeman OSB writes a regular column for ‘The Tablet’.

Note: I have lost track of the origin of some of the quotes and other text here. If anyone recognises them please let us know and we will provide proper attribution.

How wrong can you be?

Barnabas, although not one of the Twelve, was a very significant person in the Church in the Apostolic age, one of the earliest converts. A Jew and a Levite. Tradition has it that he was one of the seventytwo appointed by Jesus – Luke 10. Despite being Paul’s ‘sponsor’ in the early church, he has been overshadowed by Paul’s more flamboyant personality. Even here I started to digress into a discussion about Paul – I have been firm with him. It is not his turn. He kept trying to take it over though.

Later, the Jersualem Church sent Barnabas to Antioch to help the growing Church there. In Acts it says that after the Christian diaspora caused by the martyrdom of Stephen, most of those scattered only preached the gospel to Jews. The Antioch Christians preached the good news to Greeks as well.

Acts hints that it was concern with this that prompted them to despatch Barnabas to check things out. But Barnabas found clear evidence of the grace of God and was glad and encouraged them. The Antioch church grew rapidly and Barnabas went to Tarsus to find Paul and bring him to Antioch to help him. Acts 11: 19-26.

Barnabas and Paul stayed in Antioch for a year. Then the church sent them on missionary journeys. Later the Church at Antioch was disturbed by visitors from Jerusalem claiming that Christians had to circumcised it if they were to be saved. Barnabas and Paul returned to Jerusalem and the matter was thrashed out. It was agreed that circumcision and the other requirements of the Jewish law were not necessary for gentiles to be accepted into the Christian church. Acts 15: 1-35

Do you know, I have never really appreciated how Barnabas is described in Acts before? ‘He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith,’ Acts 11: 24. Maybe I am being fanciful, but when I read that I had such a strong sense of serenity, compassion, peace and love. How I wish I could have met him.

Eventually Barnabas and Paul returned to Antioch and after a while Paul suggested revisiting the churches they had established and encouraged on their travels. However, there was a dispute between them, Acts 15: 36-40, and they went their separate ways.

Early Christian writers attributed both the Epistle to the Hebrews and Acts of the Apostles to Barnabas, but this did not become the mainstream tradition for the authorship of these books.

There is an Epistle of Barnabas which in the 4th Century appeared in a manuscript at the end of the New Testament and a shorter form appeared in a 6th Century Latin list of canonical works. It enjoyed considerable, even canonical authority amongst parts of the Eastern church in the early centuries. Its authorship has been ascribed to various people, but Barnabas is not considered to be the author today.

The book emphasises that is unnecessary to follow the old Jewish religious laws and reinterprets the dietary requirements of the law suggesting a spiritual rather than literal interpretation.

“a belief or tendency in most religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves. The term originated in the context of a minority Protestant view that since faith itself alone is sufficient to attain salvation, adherence to religious law is not necessary, and religious laws themselves are set aside or “abrogated” as inessential. While the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of justification through faith alone in Christ, it is taken to an extreme. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness. An antinomian theology does not necessarily imply the embrace of ethical permissiveness; rather it usually implies emphasis on the inner working of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of ethical guidance.”

Anyone else out there recognise themselves as an antinomist?

There is also a book – The Acts of Barnabas – which claims its author as John Mark who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journeys, and about whom Paul fell out with Barnabas later; Mark staying with Barnabas as described earlier. It is believed to be a 5th Century document ‘designed to strengthen the claims of the church of Cyprus to apostolic foundation as the site of Barnabas’ grave, and therefore of its bishops’ independence from the patriarch of Antioch.’

Tradition has it that he was martyred in Cyprus in the year 61.

One of the most interesting things about Julian is how little we know about her. I often think that however insightful her writings her life is also the most extraordinary witness to something of the nature of God. It is paradoxical in the extreme. She was well known in her time as an anchoress and spiritual director. Anchorites, recluses and hermits had a high status in the Middle Ages. It was an acknowledged and valued spiritual vocation. It did not necessarily mean that they were completely cut off from the world and people or lived lives of extreme poverty and ascetism. She was spiritual adviser to Marjory Kempe, a woman about whom we know a good deal. Yet we know almost nothing of Julian as a person or her life.

“From the time when these things were first revealed I had often wanted to know what was our Lord’s meaning. It was more than fifteen years after that I was answered in my spirit’s understanding. ‘You would know our Lord’s meaning in this thing?

Know it well. Love was his meaning’

So, if part of her calling was to solitude and the contemplative life, she ‘walked the talk’, resisting the pressures of fame, which were no doubt just as seductive and pressing then as they are today. The only personal references in her book are there to set the context for her visions and her subsequent meditations and writings, and they are the minimum required for this purpose. Like the Gospels and their authors, it is all about God and Jesus, not about her.

The Church has always been cautious about visions and revelations, always requiring a serious process of discernment of spirits before declaring them authentic. Clifton Wolters writes “The theologians do not thrill when the prophet cries, ‘Thus saith the Lord!’. They first examine his credentials.” This is of course necessary.

She does come close to suggesting a doctrine of universalism when trying to reconcile God’s love for the sinner with the Church’s doctrines of hell and eternal damnation. Whatever your views on universalism it is not the official doctrine of the Church. At least, not then. She uses imagery of God and Jesus as our Mother extensively. ‘Our heavenly mother Jesus’. ‘This fair lovely word Mother, it is so sweet….that it may not verily be said of none but him.’ ‘Our Mother in nature and grace.’

Her writings were not exactly ignored for several centuries; rather forgotten, enjoying a revival of interest during the last century. Now there is quite a Julian revival with her cell becoming a shrine and place of pilgrimage with a ‘Julian Appreciation’ society and even a religious order in the Episcopal Church of America. She is honoured by both Catholic and Protestant Churches.

“Our good Lord comforts us at once and sweetly, as if to say, ‘It is true that sin is the cause of all this pain; but it is going to be all right; it is all going to be all right; everything is going to be all right.”

As a younger woman she had asked for three gifts from God;

• “To understand his passion.
• To suffer physically while still a young woman of thirty.
• To have as God’s gift three wounds.

With regard to the first,…..I wanted to be actually there with Mary Magdalene and the others who loved him.” Revelations of Divine Love Tr by Clifton Wolters (all quotes here are from this book).

“And he showed me more, a little thing, the size of a hazelnut, on the palm of my hand, round like a ball. I looked at it thoughtfully and wondered, ‘What is this?’ And the answer came, ‘It is all that is made’. I marvelled that it continued to exist and did not suddenly disintegrate; it was so small. And again my mind supplied the answer, ‘It exists, both now and for ever, because God loves it.’ In short, everything owes its existence to the love of God. In this ‘little thing’ I saw three truths. The first is that God made it; the second is that God loves it; and the third is that God sustains it.”

“Pray inwardly, even if you do not enjoy it. It does good, though you feel nothing. Yes, even though you think you are doing nothing.”

I feel inadequate to the task of doing her writings justice. I have put some links at the end which are good sources for further information and analysis. You can read her book online for free.

“In my foolish way I had often wondered why the foreseeing wisdom of God could not have prevented the beginning of sin, for then, thought I, all would have been well. But Jesus,….answered, ‘Sin was necessary – but it is going to be all right; it is all going to be all right; everything is going to be all right.”

I think translation by Clifton Wolters is a good one. Easy to read while keeping the authentic flavour of the old English style. A translation, not a paraphrase. There is also a good introduction with background information on the historical context, the manuscripts, Julian herself, theology and mysticism.

Clifton Walters himself says that she can be a little ‘involved and obscure’. He says that although there are the ‘golden nuggets’, ‘in the process of isolating them a lot of very rich minerals are sieved away. It is more profitable to treat her as a coal mine and work the seams. The yield is greater and more rewarding’.

“Our beginning was when we were made, but the love in which he made us never had beginning. In it we have our beginning.”

Wiki on Julian

Friends of Julian

A good site links to online book

Isabella Gilmore (nee Morris) was born on 17th July 1842, the eighth of ten children, at Woodford Hall, Essex and was a younger sister to William Morris, famed for his poetry and design and art work.

She described her childhood as happy, healthy and simple and it was certainly free enough for her to be described as ‘a bit of a tomboy’ by another brother, Edgar.

After having a governess in her early years, Isabella attended a private school in Brighton and then a finishing school in Clifton. She ‘came out’ into society at a debutante ball soon after her education was complete and here she met her future husband, Lieutenant Arthur Hamilton Gilmore, known affectionately as ‘Archy’ and they married on 18th September 1860. Sadly, just two years later, Archy died from Meningitis. They had no children.

It is not clear why, but in1886, Isabella was recommended to Bishop Thorald of Rochester as possibly being suitable to found a deaconess order for his large diocese, though initially she was not at all keen!

She had no theological training and did not know anything about being a deaconess but despite her reluctance this seemed to be God’s plan for her.

Whilst on holiday and attending a morning service in October 1886 she had her calling confirmed. ‘It was just as if God’s voice had called me, and the intense rest and joy were beyond words’ (1)

And so she began, initially along similar lines to the male order of deacons but she soon began to shape this female growth in ministry.

She wanted her deaconesses to be well educated and single (though widows were accepted) and recognisable through their blue dress.

Isabella placed great importance on these women carrying out their work in a ‘spirit’ of friendship and wanted them to be able to give practical help in the homes of the poor they visited. They took basic nursing courses to add to domestic skills and they also established Sunday ragged schools and mother’s meetings.

Her first new evening baptism service drew in 94 children and she focused very much on poor areas organising ‘cottage meetings’ which all her deaconesses had to speak at as well as being able to work with local charities, doctors and schools

She was also a member of the National Union of Women Workers and tried to address particularly the needs of the poor through girls and women, her brother William Morris was very encouraging and observed admiringly that whilst he preached socialism, she practised it.

Isabella grew very fond of the people she worked amongst and their awful conditions troubled her greatly. Though all the women she trained were paid, she was not, but gave her services for free and also subsidised much of the aid herself making sure that this help was given unconditionally. No pressure was put on anyone to attend church but, rather, in a way that really lived out her faith; every opportunity was taken to talk about God in all the situations that these early deaconesses came across.

By the time of her retirement in 1906, deaconesses had become proficient and professional and were working throughout Britain and also overseas, licensed by the bishop, working alongside parish priests and, politically and socially, influencing the professionalization of women’s work generally.

Isabella Gilmore died at her home in Dorset on 15th March 1923, aged 81.

Patrick was born in Britain in 387 during the Roman occupation. His father was a deacon in the Church but Patrick did not belong to the Christian faith.

When he was a young teenager, Patrick was captured by pirates and taken to Ireland where he was sold into slavery. He spent 6 years as a shepherd on the Slemish Mountain in County Antrim with no company apart from the sheep and pigs. Over this time he started to pray to the God he knew through his father and committed his life to serving Christ.

One night Patrick heard a voice telling him ‘see, your ship is ready!’ The voice told him to travel 200 miles to Wexford where he stowed away on a ship back to Britain.

But Patrick was soon on the road again. He travelled round Europe as he tried to discover God’s will for his life. Eventually he settled at a monastery in France and studied theology before being ordained as a priest and returning once more to Britain.

But Patrick was still unable to settle in Britain as he heard a voice in a dream appealing to him ‘We beg you, holy youth, that you shall come and shall walk again among us.’ He believed this voice was calling him back to Ireland to bring the Christian faith. He did not go straight to Ireland but back to France to prepare himself with more study among the monks of Auxerre.

Patrick became well known for his enthusiasm and commitment, but to his great disappointment when a mission was sent to Ireland he was not invited to join it.

A couple of years later another mission was formed and this time Patrick was asked to lead it, being made a Bishop by the Pope before he set off.

Life was not easy as a missionary – Patrick was attacked and imprisoned more than once. But people flocked to him to hear the faith and to become Christians. Patrick longed to leave Ireland to visit his family in Britain and the monks in France but never left the country he had been called to.

Patrick died in 461 at the age of 76. There is no marked grave for him and it is believed he was buried secretly by his friends to avoid arguments about which part of Ireland he should be buried in.

He gave his whole life to a country he must have hoped never to see again when he escaped from captivity as a young man.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Patricks’ life shows how unexpected God’s calling can be, and how tough.

Having been a slave in Ireland, it must have been the last place he would have chosen to devote his life to – and yet it seems that God prepared Patrick for his mission in Ireland over many years.

Patrick’s life went through many different stages and shows us that the Christian life is made up of three components – prayer, study, and action. Wherever we are we are also called to practice these three components of the Christian life.

Read about Patrick:

http://www.saint-patrick.com/history.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions … ck_1.shtml

Frances was the daughter of wealthy parents and she was engaged to be married to Lorenzo, the son of another rich family, from a very young age.

By the time she was eleven, Frances already had a deep Christian faith. She was convinced that God was calling her to a monastic life of prayer. She was very unhappy about her engagement and asked God to release her, but when her confessor asked her

‘Are you crying because you want to do God’s will, or because you want God to do your will?’

she decided to accept her obligations and at 13 she married Lorenzo.

The young couple lived with his family. Frances was expected to join in their busy social life, leaving her very little time to pray or study.

Frances felt Alexis offered her a choice – to die and be with God or to live and fulfil the obligations she had taken on as a wife. She chose to live the life that she had accepted when she married.

Vanozza and Frances became each others’ spiritual supporters. Within the family, they formed a small Christian community of two. While keeping up the round of social activities their positions demanded, they also went to Mass together and visited prisoners, helped the sick and even set up a small chapel.

When Lorenzo’s mother died, Frances took responsibility for running the large household while bringing up her children Battista, Giovanni Evangelista and Agnes.

Life seemed to be taking her even further away from her ideal of a life spent in contemplation of God.

Although the family were well off, life was hard. The plague took the life of Frances and Lorenzo’s son Evangelista. Civil war broke out between supporters of three rivals for the Pope’s throne and their other son, Battista, was taken as a hostage. Lorenzo went away to fight.

This happened as the vision told her it would. The angel shed a bright light so that she could read her prayers even in the night time. He also gave her good advice, once telling her to moderate her tendency to severe penances and fasting because God did not intend her spirit to ruin her flesh.

Lorenzo and Battista returned at the end of the civil war, but Lorenzo was physically and mentally broken by his experiences and needed nursing until his death.

When Frances herself was widowed she went to live in the community house as the Superior.

At the age of 52 she finally fulfilled the calling to monasticism she had felt as a young girl.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frances’ story tells us quite a lot about our own walk with God. It reminds us that God will send us support in many forms. Frances had a guardian angel in a supernatural form but she also had a loyal and supportive husband and a sister in Christ with whom she was able to practice her faith in the middle of the demands of her family duties. The angel’s reminder to her to moderate her harsh regime reminds us that our relationship with God should not be about suffering but about service. And it also tells us that God’s sense of timing is not the same as ours!

It took Frances over thirty years to fulfil her early sense of calling, but along the way she served God and others in many unexpected ways. Frances’ story reassures us that if we believe God has a plan for our lives, we should not be afraid to trust him to work out the details.