The fricking Torygraph thinks that Matt Redman is called "Matt Redmond" (presumably they've now fixed the mistake, but the headline was in my news app). I'm amazed by the stupidity, and struck by how this demonstrates the "news" paper's incredible ignorance of the Christian community. It's headline claims that the Pilavachi scandal is "tearing Christianity apart" but they're so ignorant they can't even get the name of one of the very biggest songwriters right, and they don't care enough to check.

Parts of our media, utterly uninformed about Christianity (that is, Christianity *itself* and the Christian community - those are different things) are gleefully milking this grim situation for clicks. Of course that's what one should, to a large extent, expect from the media, but it's particularly evident when they foolishly attempt to cover Christianity. I imagine that people in other communities feel similarly about other "news" coverage.

The outside world is much mistaken if they think that this horrible situation is a serious threat to Christianity, our faith is in Jesus and not a pastor nor institution - but the situation is, of course, a vital reminder to us to be wary about putting people other than Christ on pedestals.

I get that it hurts when you feel that you or the wider church are being disrespected, but surely that can't be your real takeaway from this horrible story?

The Anglican church is having very hard conversations about safeguarding and how it should be done in a religious setting. Against this background a huge number of abuse survivors are hurting badly.

You have to remember that as far as the general public are concerned the Anglican church is THE face of the church. This whole situation isn't only causing further trauma to vulnerable people but is a terrible witness to a faith that is supposed to value both love and truth.

This article maybe exaggerates the threat that this situation poses to the whole church, it also strikes me as hard to say that the media is foolish to cover Christianity. Just because the coverage is negative doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. The church as a whole needs to show that it can protect the vulnerable and take safeguarding seriously.

Oh no, it's not disrespect that I'm concerned about (we should expect to be disrespected - but not use this expectation as a reason to ignore criticism, as some will be legitimate). It's that the Telegraph is trying to report on the Christian community *whilst* being clearly (given the ridiculous error in this headline) so ignorant of it, and not even caring enough to have checked.

If I wrote a "news" article about, say, football, and got the name of one of the very most famous players (who'd just come forward about trauma, about which I was writing) wrong in a published headline, it would be a reminder that, even if I researched, I know nothing about football and should leave the reporting to people who are part of the fan community, or at least consult them.

I'm obviously not disputing the severity of the safeguarding situation, nor denying the testimony of those who've come forward. This is an utterly awful/tragic catastrophe, for them, and because of the failings it demonstrates. But the Telegraph is just exploiting the situation for profit - it doesn't know about what it's trying to report on, and it doesn't care.

it looks like you are putting a lot of weight on a spelling mistake and making a lot out of an issue that's actually very much secondary. While I respect the fact that this group is going to largely be made up of Christians, when we appear more offended by typos than abuse it's a bad look for the church - which ironically was the gist of the telegraph article

It's a newspaper and makes its business reporting on a huge range of issues. Typos and spelling mistakes happen, but they clearly care enough to try to hold the state church to account on safeguarding issues.

I think I wanted to reply because you didn't really mention any of the abuse survivors or the perpetrators in your original post and that felt wrong. FYI, the article looks right now, so perhaps they have taken this as a learning opportunity.

I have Asperger's, I'm pedantic. Typos indeed happen, but it's their *business* to check, this is a major media outlet, not an individual on social media. And it's not just a spelling mistake, they've given him a different name (demonstrating a complete lack of awareness of the Christian community) *whilst* trying to use his recent testimony of trauma (for clicks - their own profit). You say that "they care enough", but they don't care, they just want revenue, and the mistake demonstrates the lack of care.

Why presume that I'm less concerned about the abuse? I did discuss it, but not writing much about it doesn't mean that one is less concerned, there's simply nothing much for me to say. It goes without saying that abuse is indescribably awful (and antithetical to what we believe, and sin, and an affront to God), and that this situation must be investigated, it doesn't need me to say that. If someone wrote something about an aspect of a war (let's say someone wrote an article on Keep Calm posters, or soldiers' uniforms), it wouldn't mean that they don't think the deaths which took place during the war to be more important.

"you didn't really mention any of the abuse survivors or the perpetrators" - what? I mentioned a victim and the perpetrator.

Apologies if I seem argumentative