GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

Church of England

, , , , , , , , , ,

The demon of clickbait: Daily Telegraph sensationalizes UK's 'boom' in exorcisms 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?

A hackneyed phrase, I admit. But the question it poses is relevant to several important questions in the newspaper business.

What comes first, advertising or content?

Do you tailor your content to generate the greatest number of readers (or "hits" or "clicks" on-line), or do you generate content that attracts readers seeking balanced reporting?

Do you seek advertisers first, or readers whom advertisers seek to reach?

This question loomed large in my mind as I read a recent article in The Daily Telegraph entitled “'Astonishing' rise in demand for exorcisms putting mental health at risk, report finds.” In this story, the Telegraph has chosen to sensationalize an item rather than report faithfully.

The title of the piece recycles the war between science and religion so beloved by bores. Not hirsute, feral pigs, mind you, but the dreary sort of folk one comes across in the chattering classes.

The suggestion raised in the title is softened slightly by the lede – moving the problem from the war between science and religion to the war between science and the religion of immigrants. It states:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Anglicans OK casual-dress liturgical option: Did The Guardian know this is part of an old war?

, , , , , , , ,

As a rule, your GetReligionistas critique religion-beat stories in the mainstream press when journalists get something really right or really wrong. Often we simply note the presence of "religion ghosts" in stories, our term for a religion-shaped hole in the content that makes it hard for readers to know what is going on.

On weekends, I often point readers toward "think pieces" linked to religion-beat trends and issues – essays, op-ed page columns, etc. – that we wouldn't normally feature, because of our emphasis on basic news reporting.

The following piece from The Guardian – "Clergy to ditch their robes in further sign of dress-down Britain" – is a little bit of all of this.

First, it's a news piece about a highly symbolic and rather edgy decision made by the Church of England. Second, it contains material that – think-piece style – points to larger trends in England. Finally, while the story is pretty solid, it does contain an important hole that editors could have filled with a few sentences of content by a religion-beat pro who knew what she or he was doing.

The overture does a great job of putting this church decision in a wider cultural context:

First it was ties in parliament, now it is surplices at communion.
Following Speaker John Bercow’s decision last month to relax the convention requiring male MPs to wear jackets and ties in parliament, the Church of England is to allow clergy to conduct services in civvies.
The C of E’s ruling body, the synod, meeting in York, has given final approval to a change in canon law on “the vesture of ordained and authorised ministers during the time of divine service”. The measure needs to be approved by the Queen, who swapped her crown for a hat at last month’s state opening of parliament in another sign of dress-down Britain.

So what, pray tell, is a "surplice"? What are "vestments"?

This is where The Guardian team needed to add a few extra sentences. For starters, the editors seemed to think that all Christian bodies are branches on the same tree, when it comes to traditions about liturgical details. Instead, this latest Anglican innovation is yet another sign of a church body moving toward Protestant influences and away from it's ties to ancient Catholic and Orthodox traditions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Must reporters take a man at his word? UK paper caught in a 'Quaker' conundrum

, , , , , , , ,

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -- that's all.”

– From "Through the Looking Glass," by Lewis Carroll

A story in a local newspaper in the U.K. caught my eye this week, raising questions on the nature of truth and the craft of journalism.

The news that the Rev. Philip Young was standing for election to Parliament in the forthcoming General Election is of interest to the retired vicar’s family and friends – and the electors of Suffolk no doubt. But I expect little notice to be taken of the news.

What I found of interest, from a professional journalist’s perspective, is the descriptors the subject of the story used in talking about himself. Young is identified as a retired clergyman of the Church of England – but also as a Quaker and a Franciscan.

Young’s claim raises the philosophical question for journalists: to what extent may a person identify themselves? What shapes reality? Is it the social construction given by the subject of a story, or an outside arbiter – an eternal truth, natural law, the Associated Press Stylebook? Which, to borrow from Humpty Dumpty, is to be master?

This issue arises on questions of gender these days. Is it Bruce or Caitlyn Jenner?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Elephant in the cathedral: Why are so many Anglican holy places empty and, thus, low on funds?

, , , , , , ,

Anyone who has followed religion news from England knows that church attendance has been a huge story for some time now and the sobering headlines are only going to increase as the side effects – demographics is destiny, and all of that – become more obvious.

Yes, the statistical rise of Islam is part of this story, but only one part of complex drama. As in America, the rise of "Nones" – the religiously unaffiliated – is a trend that is changing how the English view their nation. That's part of the urban vs. rural divide at the heart of Brexit. It's kind of like America's red vs. blue zip-code battle.

Then there is another obvious question: Is the Church of England still the church of England? Note this headline from last year, care of The Guardian: "Church of England weekly attendance falls below 1m for first time." Here are some of the details:

The number of people attending Church of England services each week has for the first time dropped below 1 million – accounting for less than 2% of the population – with Sunday attendances falling to 760,000.
The statistics ... reflect the C of E’s steady decline over recent decades in the face of growing secularism and religious diversity, and the ageing profile of its worshippers. Numbers attending church services have fallen by 12% in the past decade, to less than half the levels of the 1960s.

The story included two other numbers that would catch the eye of careful reporters: "The church conducted 130,000 baptisms in the year, down 12% since 2004; 50,000 marriages, down 19%. ..."

I bring this up because of a sad, but interesting, Religion News Service piece about another side effect of these numbers. There is no way that this rather dull headline captures the emotions many Brits will feel about this topic: "Endangered Anglican cathedrals prompt Church of England review."

The bottom line: How does one keep the doors of cathedrals open (even for tourists) when the faithful rarely kneel at the altars or bring children into the pews?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Just in time for Holy Week: BBC asks if modern Brits still believe in the resurrection

, , , , , , , , , ,

What we have here is a unique – but to my mind interesting and valid – variation on the whole tradition of major newsrooms publishing news reports just before Easter that strive to undercut the most important doctrines in ancient Christianity.

In this case, BBC leaders commissioned a survey asking 2,010 adult Brits what they do and do not believe about the resurrection of Jesus, the central doctrine of the Christian faith. The headline that resulted delivers some sobering news for small-o orthodox Christians: "Resurrection did not happen, say quarter of Christians."

This raises a logical question: Is someone a Christian if he or she does not believe in the resurrection? In this case, the pollsters working with BBC on this survey simply punted, in terms of trying to answer that question. Here is the overture:

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.
However, almost one in 10 people of no religion say they do believe the Easter story, but it has "some content that should not be taken literally".
A fifth of non-religious people believe in life after death, the poll suggests.
The Church of England said it showed many people held religious beliefs.

Wait, the whole Church of England answered? In chorus? I would assume that this was a quote from a press agent for the Anglican establishment, a PR pro who really had to reach in order to find that silver lining!

Now, the first thing that jumped into my head when I saw this was that if you combine the "Christians" who do not believe in the resurrection with the secular people who do not believe in the same doctrine, then you have a really good picture of the size of a religious and secular left coalition in modern British culture.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Oh my ... British Prime Minister Theresa May appears to be a serious Anglican Christian

, , , , , , , ,

As the world continues to reel from the populist shocks of 2016, here's another stunner for which I hope, dear reader, you are sitting down.

Seated? Good.

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is – an Anglican Christian, who dares to let her faith influence her politics. Maybe.

This stunning insight comes via Foreign Policy magazine's website and a first-person piece by one Andrew Brown, who is said to cover religion for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Behold, the headline proclaims: "Theresa May Is a Religious Nationalist." A key passage adds this:

One of the least understood, yet most important, things about British Prime Minister Theresa May is that she is the daughter of a Church of England vicar. The fact that she is personally devout, by contrast, is well-known. I have heard several anecdotes about her time as a member of Parliament and minister when she would turn up at local parish initiatives that could offer her no conceivable political advantage. Such devotion to the church is unusual if not unknown among British politicians. Gordon Brown remains a very serious Presbyterian; Tony Blair went to Mass most Sundays.

Holy condescension, Batman! A politician who clings to her childhood faith and uses it in her daily life. And despite May's personal opposition to "Brexit," the referendum that decrees the U.K. should exit the European Union, she is poised to try and carry that out because leaving the EU is in parallel with Henry VIII's departure from the Roman Catholic faith to set up the aforementioned Church of England. Brown explains:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Ye old news subject of Anglican decline gets royal treatment from The Economist

, , , , , , , , , ,
Ye old news subject of Anglican decline gets royal treatment from The Economist

The British-based weekly The Economist has achieved must-read status for its foreign affairs and financial reportage, and includes a solid if somewhat spotty U.S. package for stateside readers.

On religion, it doesn’t do all that much, but when it does the pieces are usually well worth reading. For one example, there’s a recent examination of the Church of England’s long-running decline and fall. It’s a particularly good example for news scribes of how to enrich a somewhat familiar theme with ample fact-gathering combined with analysis and compressed into one page with the usual newsmagazine wizardry.

Though generally aware of the situation, GetReligion folks who keep up with church events will learn new stuff about this established royal institution, nominally headed by England’s monarch and led by an archbishop picked by the prime minister’s advisors. (The Church of England is separate from the other Anglican branches in Britain, the Church of Ireland, Church in Wales and Scottish Episcopal Church.) And for readers who don’t follow church affairs, this article will be a revelation.

First, some of those facts. In January, average attendance slipped below 1 million for the first time. Another milestone, in 2009, showed Britons without religion slightly outnumbered those saying they’re Christians (now increased to 49 percent vs. 43 percent). And since 2004 baptisms are down 12%, church marriages down 19%, and funerals down 29%. Nowadays a quarter of Sunday services are attended by 16 or fewer worshipers.

A Gallup survey last year found only six of 65 countries are less religious than the United Kingdom. And so forth and so on. World without end. Amen.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

How much longer might British headlines exclaim, 'God save the Queen'?

, , ,
How much longer might British headlines exclaim, 'God save the Queen'?

The Telegraph, a United Kingdom center-right broadsheet, recently ran this headline: "Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge."

It topped a story about the findings of a two-year study on the place of religion in official British life in today's multicultural milieu. The judge referred to is an ex-judge, who's also a baroness, who chaired the study conducted by the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, a non-government body.

Good piece of work, I thought the first time I read the head (an abbreviation cherished by newspaper copy editors in a universe fading, alas, into the far, far past). Then I read the story. And I concluded that, as with so many headlines that try to compress a complicated story line into a few words, it actually mislead.

Journalism truism: Headline writing is much more difficult than it looks.

OK, enough with the Journalism 101 stuff. Let's get to the meat of the story.

Yes, British churches have witnessed a steep decline in attendance. Nearly 60 percent of the British population still calls itself Christian, but only 25 percent say they are religious, according to a 2011 national census report.

Church of England attendance decline has been particularly steep. Sunday attendance was reported in 2012 to be about half of what it was 45 years earlier.

But where the aforementioned headline failed is in its conflating traditional Christian belief and practice with the more nebulous, and harder to measure – but still critically important – touchstone of cultural Christianity. Cultural Christianity may fall short in the minds of church officials and traditional believers, but it's still the ground of self-identity for the majority of Brits.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Outing Britain's gay (whatever that means) Anglican bishops

, , , , , , , , ,

The Daily Telegraph ran a story this week under the headline “One in 10 Church of England bishops 'could be secretly gay' – says bishop” that suggests the term means an individual who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex and who acts upon those attractions. Yet in the context of the story it could just as well mean an individual who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex but who lives a celibate life.

Temptation is not sin, the Church of England teaches. It is immoral to act upon homosexual desire, but the desire itself is not immoral.

That point escapes theTelegraph, which reports that in a forthcoming book the Bishop of Buckingham Dr. Alan Wilson charges his episcopal colleagues with hypocrisy for opposing same-sex marriage even though a dozen of them are “gay.”

The article quotes him as saying:


Please respect our Commenting Policy