Was that it?

You didn't really think you were going to get rid of me so easily, did you? Here I am in Edinburgh, waiting with bated breath for the opening of the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Oh, all right - I'm exaggerating, if not actually being economical with the truth.
I shan't be lugging the laptop up to Palmerston Place tomorrow - wifi-less, I believe. Like a bachelor pad. Sorry. I'm looking forward to meeting up with some folk I don't see often, but really I hate meetings. Must be having to sit quietly.

I've been reading ab's thoughts about what blogging does, and when he'll stop doing it. I took the chance to unload in a comment some of the thoughts I've been having the last couple of days, occasioned by the veritable stushie that sprang up on my own comment column. I suppose it comes back to how we regard comment, and how we feel about saying (writing) things so publicly. And there is the additional question of what constitutes rudeness and what is merely a robust exchange. Often, of course, it is possible to disguise criticism and hostility by using, say, the impersonal third person to make your point rather than the second person, which always comes across as more direct. But most readers are perfectly capable of sussing the hostility/jibes/criticism anyway - so is it more honest just to say what you think? And then there are people who make a game of that sort of thing - just listen to Prime Minister's Questions and hear what I mean.

I dunno. I'm always aware of potential readers when I write, and try not let the side down stylistically or in any other way. I won't be shutting away the laptop any day soon - I've kept a diary for 50 years, dammit, and it's still on the go too. In a way, there's a frustrated journo lurking in me, and I'm sure blogging's as good as Dr Kawashima for stimulating the brain cells.

Maybe I'll try a wee moblog tomorrow ....

Casting out demons?

I've taken a couple of comments from my post "Fired up" and reproduce them here because I think they deserve wider consideration than they will get tucked away among the comments. They come at the end of a string of criticisms of the Cursillo movement, which, briefly, is a method of rejuvenating tired Christians and firing them with new vigour in believing. It works on the basis of a three-day weekend course, after which participants return to their own churches to continue growing and developing as mature Christians. Most of the criticism comes from clergy - on this blog, and in the church as a whole.

Kenny Macaulay said...

As a member of the clergy who was dragged kicking and screaming to Cursillo, (I was told that I had to go as a condition of my taking up my present post),I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the experience. The problem with so many clergy is that they have already made up their minds about Cursillo, as I had, and approach the whole movement with closed minds at worst, and extreme caution at best. If this movement is so divisive or damaging, it beats me why the College of Bishops and particularly our Primus endorses it, and in fact encourages its growth! Or am I being thick?

Marilyn Shiells said...

Yes...... it's the enthusiasm for Christ that's the important point and not where that enthusiasm comes from. I agree ... that good sponsorship is paramount - but that's why it's necessary to work in partnership - clergy and laity. However that partnership doesn't work when a priest tells his congregation "not to touch Cursillo with a barge pole." This priest had never been to Cursillo so didn't have first hand experience on which to base his argument. A loss for members of that congregation who may have found enthusiasm for Christ through Cursillo. I feel this attitude is more damaging to the church than someone who found Cursillo wasn't for them.

I cannot believe, however, that anyone could come back from Cursillo damaged. Any priest or lay person preaching in a SEC has the potential to damage. We are all open to potential damage from reading the newspapers, watching the TV, surfing the net etc but as, hopefully, responsible adults we can absorb what is presented and make informed choices. Perhaps we shouldn't get out of bed if we want to avoid the risk of being damaged - though, with physio hat on now, that's the worst thing for your back!

I would at this point like to ask critics of the method to look at the people who have found Cursillo to be a useful tool in the church. Ask, as Kenny does, why so many good people endorse it. Ask what the difference is between them and those who criticise. And above all, apply Jesus' own criterion: he that is not against us is for us. And then?

Come and see.