I was surfing the net tonight looking for information about churches in london. I stumbled accross and most alarming link to the Evening standard which alleged that African Christians were performing 'Child sacrifices in London'. This article had been published in the Evening Standard and the story widely covered. Christianity Today even has an interesting round-up post with links to an audio interview on Radio 4 and several newspaper sites citing the story online.

I had never read any of this and so it came as somewhat of a surprise tonight! Now, due to the wonders of technology, three months on the story still exists online and can be stumbled upon by anyone. It still has great power to disturb and shock. If true, then clearly there should be much uproar and great efforts to stamp out the shocking practices described.

An initial search for more information throws up what seems to be very alarming information "300 African Boys missing", "child exorcisms are commonplace" and indeed, three people were sentanced in June for a cruel child excorcism. Are such cases isolated or are they widespread?

A little more delving reveals some serious doubts about the authenticity of the original story. First, a BBC account in Jume suggest that the report was "racist witch-hunting". Second, when a story that big just goes quiet and there is no follow up you know people must have realised it was not quite the real thing. Where exactly is this report- why hasnt it been published as the story stuggested it would?

Then, on a non-newspaper site I found the claim that the Evening standard had been foced to apologise for london child sacrifice claims.

If a blogger gets caught out, the ususually will stick an "Update" notice on the bottom of the post that was shown to be in error. Since online versions of newspapers are present for ever, and can go on misleading, shouldnt they have to do the same?

It seems to me that not everyone will go to the trouble I have tonight when they encounter an errant news report and that better accountability is required in online reporting. Newspapers could learn a thing or two from blogs.

Of course, it is a bit disturbing that the "retraction" got so little coverage, and it is at least possible that some of these reprehensible practices are going on under our noses. There should be more coverage of a matter like this either way- to reassure us, or to further alert us.

All this is just one more reason why it is so important to go to a church which is part of something bigger than itself- mainstream churches would of course have nothing to do with any of this kind of thing. If a church is lead by one charismatic leader who does not have any accountability externally then the concerns raised by this material are in fact only one reason why you as a churchgoer should be concerned.

I am not convinced that any church should be wholly independent, but that is a matter for another post.....