New story, old url: the Telegraph and the Bishop of Greater London

May the Farce Be With You: there was a brief flutter this morning over a Telegraph story headlined 'Bishops Condemn CofE over Cinema Advert'.

If you visit the story now, you'll see that the headline and article have completely changed, but the url hasn't. The Bishops in question in the original (you only need 2 to make a plural) were Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, who wasn't criticising the CofE at all (which the new article recognises), and the 'Bishop of Greater London', who is nothing to do with the Church of England, Here's a bit about his 'Open Episcopal Church', though his work seems to be as more of a freelance celebrant and campaigner. He doesn't seem that keen on the Lords Prayer either, which is odd for a bishop.

Credit to the Telegraph for correcting the story, but not much for posting it in the first place. It almost looked like an informal competition with the Sun for most misleading headline of the week.

The whole business does raise the interesting question of DIY clergy titles. What other clergy with impressive titles are lurking out there, waiting to be uncovered? If the CofE missed Greater London, what other parts of the UK could be ripe for episcopal/ceremonial recognition? It could be quite a lucrative trade, the ecclesiastical equivalent of personalised number plates. Canon Precentor of Marks and Spencer? Pioneer Archdeacon of Helvellyn? The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells could be a proper title at last, with the added bonus of getting quoted by national newspapers looking for a headline.

The New Leader of the Opposition Is.....ITV

In the absence of a functioning political system, thank God for journalists who are prepared to do the politicians job. In the days when the Conservatives were as dysfunctional as Labour is now, the official opposition was Bremner, Bird and Fortune. This week ITV has picked up the baton:

It is why on ITV News this week we are running a series of reports on the state of mental health care in Britain. An investigation by ITV News and the charity Young Minds has revealed that in the last year alone £35m has been cut from children and adolescent services, £80m in the past four years.Worse, it is the early intervention services including those provided by local authorities in schools that have been hit hardest. So children with mental health problems are not being dealt with early enough and are ending up in wards – if they are lucky – where their problems worsen.We highlight the case of one teenager suffering from depression who tried to take her own life and who claims there were no appropriate services locally to help her. Eventually she was referred to the child and adolescent mental health service but was placed on a waiting list for months. This cannot be right. We also met a 22-year-old girl with mental health problems forced to spend a night in a police cell because there were no beds available. It is a dire state of affairs and needs urgent attention.

Read the rest of Mark Austins piece here. In the Coalition the Libdems made some good noises about mental health, but this all happened on their watch. Having said that, the health secretary was a Conservative then, and is a Conservative now. A recent survey on people's experience of mental health 'care' found that:

Just one in seven (14%) of the patients surveyed said the care they received provided the right response and helped to resolve their mental health crisis. Another 42% said it had helped a bit. But two in five (40%) said the care they had received was not right and had not helped them resolve their crisis.

We have a National Health Service for physical illness, and a badly resourced imitation for mental health. Following Jeremy Hunt with a sousaphone might be fun, but what he really needs to do is to try to get an appointment at his local mental health unit before Christmas. But maybe the good people at ITV have already set that up.

Don't Read All About It

Christians need to exercise a healthy scepticism towards the mainstream media, and find alternative sources of news alongside it. That seems to be the lesson of the last 7 days. If you're a newly elected political leader, you can expect more scepticism towards your faith than towards your politics, and if Jesus does play any part in your life, don't bother mentioning it to a journalist because they'll leave that bit out anyway. One high profile BBC broadcaster notes that 'it's almost socially unacceptable to say that you believe in God'

A sensible approach might be to assume, even if it seems unkind, that every worldview is worthy of suspicion and scrutiny, and that it’s not just some chap in the Lib Dems talking to someone who may or may not exist in the sky who should be grilled about his fundamental assumptions, but everyone who expresses an interest in making big decisions on voters’ behalf. Yes, we should be suspicious of Tim Farron’s Christian worldview – but only in so far as we suspect everyone’s funny jumble of beliefs and assumptions.

Reasonable (mostly) words at the Spectator, but just look at the headline it's been given. 

What's the message? Keep quiet about your Christian faith. If you don't, and it's something positive, it won't be reported anyway, either that or we'll use it as a stick to beat you with. Welcome to a 'free' media. 

So, head for the bunkers? No, the suspicion and misunderstanding faced by the first century Christians was several orders of magnitude worse than anything in the UK at the moment. And what is the advice of their main leader? "Always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you, but do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3) We still need to be PG certificate Christians, Prepared, Gentle, and suitable for a general audience. And meanwhile, pray for Tim Farron, who has suddenly become one of the most high profile Christians in the country. 

Channel 4 Alpha Documentary

Watched Jon Ronsons documentary on an Alpha group in Oxford earlier this evening. Lots of twittering going on during and after, quite a lot of it negative. A few thoughts:

- fair play to Alpha, who are usually seen as quite tight and controlling on their publicity, for giving Channel 4 of all people access to a course. And to the people involved - I'm not sure I'd have been too keen on talking about God with a camera stuffed up my nose.

- It gave a reasonable impression of the course, but then zeroed in (as Alpha does, to be fair) on speaking in tongues, with some wacky footage of the Toronto Vineyard during the 'Toronto Blessing', and Charlie Cleverley (leader of St. Aldates, Oxford) trying to encourage folk to speak in tongues as raucous sports cars zoomed past the window of the hotel.

- The documentary didn't follow the full course, stopping at the 'Holy Spirit weekend', which normally happens just over halfway through. Ronson made an interesting point: he was impressed that Alpha did something as potentially controversial as covering speaking in tongues (most of its alternatives don't). One participant pointed out that if he'd known that was involved at the beginning, he'd not have done the course.

- I was quite uncomfortable watching the part where the Holy Spirit was invited to come, and folk were encouraged to speak in tongues. Partly because I felt the presence of the camera probably inhibited people, but also because there are some things Christians do that aren't supposed to be done in front of a camera. Jesus tells people to pray behind a closed door, and Paul tells the Corinthian church that if they all pray in tongues in worship, newcomers will conclude they are bonkers (cue Dizzee Rascal). I guess a documentary needs to show people what happens on the course, but watching it I felt so uncomfortable at that point that I had to physically restrain myself from switching channels for a couple of minutes.

- the overwhelming impression of the Christians was that they were 'nice people', folk seemed to enjoy the human interaction. It would be interesting to catch up with the participants after a few weeks, rather than in the heat of the moment having walked out of a communion service. I guess the documentary has to play up the drama - whether of conflict or conversion - when the real story may have been a bit more gradual.

Final thought: is it just me, or do other people watch documentaries on Christianity with half a feeling that the documentary makers are giggling behind their hands? I'm quite sure Ronson isn't - from the comments he made during the documentary, and his own reports of doing the Alpha course himself a few years ago - but maybe it's just me.

Update: if you missed it and can't spare an hour to watch it on catchup, Rachel has a blow by blow account of the programme with her own reflections.

Other thoughts from the blogosphere:
Ceridwens cauldron thought it was indoctrination of the gullible
Zoomtard seems to have had the same reaction as me: ok until the Toronto bit.
Simple Pleasures has an interview with Jon Ronson about the programme, which is a fascinating read, and blows away any suspicions you might have about why he did it.
Interesting view from chameleon102, whose vicar is trying to sign him up to an Alpha course.
Missiome also not sure about the way the programme covered speaking in tongues etc., but thought it 'well worth watching'.