Ship of Fools: MW Report: Grace Family Church

Thread: MW Report: Grace Family Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028760

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It's quite clear that Torold didn't exactly like the Grave Family Church in Liverpool - well, I don't think I would have done either, but that may be a matter of personal taste! However I'd like to make a point and ask a question.

1. The MW report lists the church's denomination as "Evangelical Alliance". That cannot be correct as the EA is an affiliation of churches from many denominations (including many of my own Baptist ones). However I agree that, from the church's website, it is difficult to see what is its prime affiliation - if any.

2. On the website, the Pastor is described as someone who "has an amazing teaching gift that is relevant to everyday life".

I accept that the church wishes to promote itself, but how do Shipmates react to self-laudatory statements like this, which IMO seem to be becoming more common, especially but not exclusively among the "new churches". For instance, a church near here likes to tell everyone that its worship is "awesome" - in the popular understanding of the word; while lots of churches seem to describe themselves as "vibrant".

Somehow the use of this kind of language doesn't feel quite "right" - or am I just getting too old?

[ 11. February 2015, 10:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I suspect your first para should read "It's quite clear that Torold didn't exactly like the Grace Family Church in Liverpool..."

Agree that Evangelical Alliance is not a denomination and in fact this says nothing about the church concerned. I think most likely they would call themselves non-denominational.

I don't have any opinions on the advertising copy - it is just that. Many churches make all kinds of claims.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The report doesn't seem to be there

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2818.html

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

2. On the website, the Pastor is described as someone who "has an amazing teaching gift that is relevant to everyday life".

Somehow, this doesn't sit well with me, even though I would be fine with a statement like "we are a vibrant worshiping community." I think I'm more comfortable with laudatory statements about the community as a whole as opposed to one particular staff member, even if he is the pastor.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect your first para should read "It's quite clear that Torold didn't exactly like the Grace Family Church in Liverpool..."

Yes, indeed! [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 11. February 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The pastor studied at Rhema Bible Institute - enough said!

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The pastor studied at Rhema Bible Institute - enough said!

Really, what does this signify?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Really, what does this signify?

It majors on prosperity teaching.

Grace Family Church also doesn't appear to be a registered charity unlike most churches.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Grace Family Church also doesn't appear to be a registered charity unlike most churches.

To me, this seems like a good thing. At least atheists can't complain about tax breaks going to this particular church!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect your first para should read "It's quite clear that Torold didn't exactly like the Grace Family Church in Liverpool..."
Yes, indeed!

I have to say I quite liked the original description though

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Grace Family Church also doesn't appear to be a registered charity unlike most churches.
To me, this seems like a good thing. At least atheists can't complain about tax breaks going to this particular church!

Is that really true or is its registration under a slightly different name? I'd be very worried about a church that isn't registered as a charity. Who is it accountable to?

Also, as a matter of curiosity, Howard Morgan obviously comes from Duluth, Georgia. Is Pastor Stacey a native scouser or does she come from somewhere else as well?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I am pretty sure that churches with a low income are not required to be charities and some structures make the requirements needed to be a charity quite hard. But I could be wrong, it was a while ago that I looked into this.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd be very worried about a church that isn't registered as a charity. Who is it accountable to?

To its members? To the EA?

Are house churches routinely registered with the authorities? I wouldn't have thought so, but I suppose that some of them find it advantageous.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Pastor is described as someone who "has an amazing teaching gift that is relevant to everyday life". I accept that the church wishes to promote itself, but how do Shipmates react to self-laudatory statements like this? <<snip>> A church near here likes to tell everyone that its worship is "awesome" . . . while lots of churches seem to describe themselves as "vibrant".

It's a sin of pride.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Pastor is described as someone who "has an amazing teaching gift that is relevant to everyday life". I accept that the church wishes to promote itself, but how do Shipmates react to self-laudatory statements like this? <<snip>> A church near here likes to tell everyone that its worship is "awesome" . . . while lots of churches seem to describe themselves as "vibrant".
It's a sin of pride.

My view, though, is that more churches ought to give some indication on their noticeboard of what they're like. Unless you're in the know you have no idea what you'll find when you go in. At least 'vibrant' and 'awesome' imply (I think) that you'll get 'modern' high-energy worship. IOW, if you want something quiet and reflective you'll do better elsewhere.

There's a URC place near me, and they have a notice board outside telling you that of all the different groups that use their buildings. For example, there's a poster for yoga and another for meditation, and both go into the benefits of what these practices can give you. But nothing anywhere tells you what the URC does or what it believes or what worship is like in this particular church. I don't see how this silence can be helpful. If nothing else, it gives the impression that the URC are the least interesting group to use the building.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Few churches would not want to be a registered charity, but registration can take time, depending on the jurisdiction.

If a church signboard advertises itself as awesome and vibrant, I usually head to a nearby Starbucks where I can wait upon the Lord with more success, but YMMV. Still, every now and then it's not a bad thing to be surprised.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that really true or is its registration under a slightly different name? I'd be very worried about a church that isn't registered as a charity. Who is it accountable to?

Also, as a matter of curiosity, Howard Morgan obviously comes from Duluth, Georgia. Is Pastor Stacey a native scouser or does she come from somewhere else as well?

I've checked a little and can't find registration under any other name nor by location. Mind you, there's an outfit by the same name that was based in Bradford but which has now closed down.

Accountability seems to be limited to other Family Churches. Hence the Howard Morgan link I think.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As far as I understand, there is no legal requirement for a church to be a Registered Charity. It an just be a voluntary association, but will lose out on both the accountability and benefits of being a charity. I have heard anecdotally of some Anabaptist-type churches that don't wish to be charities as they feel that involves making an unacceptable compromise with the State - I can't say if those stories are true though.

As it happens, the Pastor is a trustee of an ecumenical evangelistic organisation in Liverpool called "Together for the Harvest" which seems to have the aim of bringing churches together for evangelistic activity. It sounds perfectly fine (except their accounts are rarely submitted punctually!)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2818.html

Thank you - the report amused and saddened me in equal measure.

That sort of church repels me but I have considered doing a MW report on somewhere similar. However, I would very to find some positive things to say - the church I considered is packed with young people and also with working class people - something my C of E is not good at.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

This church is very near where I live and in the parish of the church where I worship. I know very little about it, but it is where Anthony Walker (the teenager who was murdered a few years ago in an attack horrifically similar to that on Stephen Lawrence) and his family used to worship. The MW didn't mention the ethnic mix of the congregation, which I would guess has a much higher proportion of BME people than most local churches. A group from Grace Church occasionally set up a stall at the local farmers' market (as do we) and they are very friendly.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

That sort of church repels me but I have considered doing a MW report on somewhere similar. However, I would very [much like] to find some positive things to say - the church I considered is packed with young people and also with working class people - something my C of E is not good at.

I think you'll find it hard to say something positive about them if their way of doing church 'repels' you. It'll come across as grudging admiration at best. And if you learn that it's this repellent quality itself that attracts their demographic, how will that benefit you? No at all, because you and your congregation probably won't want to make your church worship and atmosphere similarly repellent in order to achieve the same results.

Visiting other kinds of churches is always interesting, but rather than submitting yet another disapproving MW report from a church of a very different tradition, it might be more useful to visit a church fairly similar to your own that's been more successful at reaching the demographic you're interested in. At least you'll have a fighting chance of learning something that you'll actually be able to apply in your church context. IMHO.

[ 13. February 2015, 00:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That sort of church repels me

In the same way that the church you attend might repel some of us?

[ 13. February 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Being repelled is in the eye of the holder, of course, but in the MW Report in this case I felt that the level of repulsion went beyond the question of 'taste' - ie. there were issues about the way this particular outfit promotes itself, there was the issue about how the theme of the talk bore little - or no - relation to the scriptural texts cited etc.

I can't second guess, of course, how the Mystery Worshipper might have reacted in any other setting that was different to what they were used to ... nor can I tell how leo would react if, say, he visited a church that came from a tradition that was very different to his Anglo-Catholic one.

Sure, it's axiomatic that, by and large, a Baptist, say, isn't going to be particularly impressed by Solemn High Mass at St Nosebleed High of Crompton Magna - but I suspect that some Mystery Worshippers from a Baptist or other 'low-church'-y setting might respond well and positively to certain aspects.

I can't speak for Leo, but the issue at stake in the MW Report in this instance doesn't seem to be simply the apparent informality and style of the service - but the volume and what the Mystery Worshipper took to be a somewhat crass presentation.

You can be pretty informal and snake-belly low in terms of style and presentation and still not come across as badly as Grace Family Church appears to in this report.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, we've all heard a few slightly dodgy sermons, as well as pulpit exhortations to give more money to the church (but usually in aid of the ubiquitous roof or boiler problems rather than the preacher's DVDs...).

At least the people tried to be friendly. Plenty of MW Reports talk about careful sermons and lovely music, but if the atmosphere is a bit cold the church can be off-putting nevertheless.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can be pretty informal and snake-belly low in terms of style and presentation and still not come across as badly as Grace Family Church appears to in this report.

That's true. But, if you are "repelled" by the basic format and ethos of the place, then you are unlikely to go hunting for positives to report.

On a deeper question - and with the possible danger of slipping into DH territory - there is a very real question as to the extent to which any church aligns, or chooses not to align, itself with current culture. At one end of the spectrum you have churches like Grace Family, which appears to have almost completely "bought into" contemporary culture; the same could be said of many Fresh Expressions. At the other end, you have the (say) Orthodox view, for whom church is a "given" and should never bow to accommodate itself to passing cultural fads.

(ISTM that one of the fundamental problems affecting Anglicanism in particular - and often being debated on the Ship - is really centred around this issue, even if it "presents" in various different guises.)

[ 13. February 2015, 13:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My view, though, is that more churches ought to give some indication on their noticeboard of what they're like. Unless you're in the know you have no idea what you'll find when you go in.

To be fair, a lot of churches now do this on their websites.

To tell a funny story: a URC friend of mine went on holiday to a different part of Britain. On the Sunday he attended the local URC church, expecting the usual traditional and MOTR (nonconformist)t worship.

When he got into the church he was a bit upset to set guitars and music stands ready for use but, as he said, "I couldn't very well walk out, and they were very nice people". But the service itself confirmed his worse fears.

At the end, he went out of the door to check very carefully that this was, indeed, a URC church and found that it was. As he later told me, "Well I really think they should have had a health warning at the door!"

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being repelled is in the eye of the holder, of course, but . . . there were issues about the way this particular outfit promotes itself, there was the issue about how the theme of the talk bore little - or no - relation to the scriptural texts cited etc.

I think that's the value of reports such as this. It's not that reporters seek out churches they know they're not going to like just to write snotty remarks about them -- but rather, it's that there are certain elements that appear to be common to churches such as this that we feel should be held up to the light of scrutiny. Sometimes it's hard to be objective, but that's what editors are for after all.

I'd encourage Leo to explore around, to visit churches that have caught his attention in one way or another, and certainly to report on them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My view, though, is that more churches ought to give some indication on their noticeboard of what they're like. Unless you're in the know you have no idea what you'll find when you go in.
To be fair, a lot of churches now do this on their websites.

True, but not all congregations have a dedicated website. I know quite a few that don't. And some of the websites say very little about the nature of worship.

Anyway, a website only works if you're actually online and looking for a local church in the first place. Many people will just be driving or walking past, and might be willing to give a second glance if the church noticeboard has something interesting to say. Certainly, I've tried to attend churches based on what's on a noticeboard. Unfortunately, the noticeboards sometimes aren't even up to date with the info that they do give, which is another problem!

[ 13. February 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've tried to attend churches based on what's on a noticeboard. Unfortunately, the noticeboards sometimes aren't even up to date with the info that they do give, which is another problem!

That's one of my pet gripes ... I have seen churches still advertising their Christmas Carol Service in April!

BTW please don't try to look at my own church's website - it has got rather out of date as I'm on Sabbatical leave at the moment! At least the noticeboards outside are being kept current.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That sort of church repels me
In the same way that the church you attend might repel some of us?

Indeed.

On a good day, I value church DISunity because it means inclusiveness - there are styles that appeal to everyone.

On a bad day, it makes me grumpy!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being repelled is in the eye of the holder, of course, but . . . there were issues about the way this particular outfit promotes itself, there was the issue about how the theme of the talk bore little - or no - relation to the scriptural texts cited etc.
I think that's the value of reports such as this. It's not that reporters seek out churches they know they're not going to like just to write snotty remarks about them -- but rather, it's that there are certain elements that appear to be common to churches such as this that we feel should be held up to the light of scrutiny. Sometimes it's hard to be objective, but that's what editors are for after all.

But to what end? The kind of people who want to 'scrutinise' the most are those who would hardly choose to join such churches anyway, and the people who do attend may be uninterested in what someone from an entirely different tradition and with a different theology thinks.

I imagine that the average High Church Anglican or MOTR Presbyterian would be relatively uninterested in what some undercover researcher from a tiny, theologically-suspect and relatively powerless charismatic congregation thought of their worship!

Churches can be undermined by bad PR, though, so I suppose there's the possibility of warning as yet uninformed people from the target demographic not to be taken in by the bright lights and warm welcome offered by some churches of a certain type....

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The kind of people who want to 'scrutinise' the most are those who would hardly choose to join such churches anyway

Well, there's scrutinize and then there's scrutinize: scrutinize meaning "This is what I saw here; what do you think of it?" and "I was repelled by what I saw here; aren't you also?" That's what I meant by objectivity. "o wad some power the giftie gie us . . ." as bonny Bobby Burns wrote.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not someone who has a lot of faith in the notion of objectivity, TBH.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Objectivity is in the eye of the objector.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Objectivity is in the eye of the objector.

Get it out with Optrex.

(Sorry, couldn't resist it)

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have seen churches still advertising their Christmas Carol Service in April!

Meh. Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that the average High Church Anglican or MOTR Presbyterian would be relatively uninterested in what some undercover researcher from a tiny, theologically-suspect and relatively powerless charismatic congregation thought of their worship!

Well, they/we ought to be. Unless a church intends to become an inward-looking chaplaincy to its existing members, it should frequently scrutinise its practices with an eye to growth.

That doesn't mean that it should imitate happy clappies but it should re-evaluate things that convey a different message from the one intended.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that the average High Church Anglican or MOTR Presbyterian would be relatively uninterested in what some undercover researcher from a tiny, theologically-suspect and relatively powerless charismatic congregation thought of their worship!
Well, they/we ought to be. Unless a church intends to become an inward-looking chaplaincy to its existing members, it should frequently scrutinise its practices with an eye to growth.

That doesn't mean that it should imitate happy clappies but it should re-evaluate things that convey a different message from the one intended.

Interestingly, The CofE became quite good at learning from other churches from the 19th c. onwards. This is why none of its 'rivals' ever managed to usurp its place in the national consciousness. So it would be unfair for me to say that it has no interest in what others are doing.

I suppose it's a case of knowing what your strengths are, and what can be achieved with the resources, the people and the heritage that your particular church has to deal with.

One way that churches can get to learn from each other is through ecumenical engagement. I think it's a shame when churches in a local area don't know each other or do anything together. In an area I know, the local churches often come together for 'extra-curricula' youth work and activities. This makes sense when one church has expertise and staff, and another doesn't.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... out of interest is there any evidence that churches which have received 'bad PR'or critical comments in MW reports have suffered in consequence or changed their modus-operandi? In the case of Grace Family Church, I would be very surprised if they were that bothered or concerned about comments made here - unless they were positive or affirming ones.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I do know of a church that was concerned about how they were called out for being extremely unfriendly and supposedly made an effort to be more welcoming. I understand that nothing has changed.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

As I said in an earlier post, the kind of people who go to that sort of church might not be all that bothered about the bad report. (After all, they seemed to be enjoying themselves - which you can't say for every church.) But the 'bad PR', I suggested, could serve to warn off others who might attend in the future. Who knows?

TBH, I'm still not clear who the MW Reports are actually for, especially the ones of this type.

[ 15. February 2015, 11:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Who are Mystery Worship reports for? Why, us of course ... just ss the discussion threads are for anyone who chooses to engage with them or the small ads in the local paper are for anyone who chooses to read those.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Large issues like that must be harder to work on, but I know of one church that I MW'd back in the days of the giants. I complained that they had a booklet of psalm chants but never told anyone which one was being used for which psalm. That changed shortly after the report came out.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I am aware of one comment we received on a report where the church thanked us for pointing out the ways in which a visitor might be turned off, and promised to try to do better. Most comments we receive, however, on critical reports tend to be defensive.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Who are Mystery Worship reports for? Why, us of course ... just ss the discussion threads are for anyone who chooses to engage with them or the small ads in the local paper are for anyone who chooses to read those.

... IOW for those of us who are curious about what happens in other people's churches. Fair enough. I prefer this to the loftier argument above that there's some sort of duty to 'scrutinise' the ways in which other people worship.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I do know of a church that was concerned about how they were called out for being extremely unfriendly and supposedly made an effort to be more welcoming. I understand that nothing has changed.

I reported on a church that was unfriendly. Their vicar preached about this report and things have changed.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

*I'd be very worried about a church that isn't registered as a charity*

Our church (a bog standard mildly evangelical Baptist Union congregation) isn't. Churches with a turnover of under £100k aren't obliged to register, and the ever increasing mountain of paperwork charitable status entails isn't terribly appealing. I would guess that plenty of small to medium sized churches of a Baptist or Congregationalist persuasion aren't registered. This doesn't necessarily make them 'worrying'.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
*I'd be very worried about a church that isn't registered as a charity*

Our church (a bog standard mildly evangelical Baptist Union congregation) isn't. Churches with a turnover of under £100k aren't obliged to register, and the ever increasing mountain of paperwork charitable status entails isn't terribly appealing. I would guess that plenty of small to medium sized churches of a Baptist or Congregationalist persuasion aren't registered. This doesn't necessarily make them 'worrying'.

Maybe the paperwork is different in Scotland but we just fill in a form and send OSCR a copy of our accounts. What does your mountain consist of?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I understand part of the problem is deciding who is to be a charity trustee in the Baptist/congregational system, and who is prepared to take unlimited personal liability. Unlike some other structures, baptist churches are individual entities 'owned' equally by the members, so sorting these issues out in a small congregation is a non trivial problem.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I am aware of one comment we received on a report where the church thanked us for pointing out the ways in which a visitor might be turned off, and promised to try to do better. Most comments we receive, however, on critical reports tend to be defensive.

It's interesting that this was an overall positive response with just two substantive critiques. One of which was, as far as I'm aware, a matter of taste in CofE Liturgy (placement of notices). I wonder if the rector had always wanted to change one or both of these things anyway and took this as his excuse.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

I did see one of these fly-on-the-wall documentaries - think it was called 'Rev' or some such - where the incumbent suffered severe depression as a result of a scurrilous Mystery Worshipper report.

Such things shouldn't be allowed.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Our church (a bog standard mildly evangelical Baptist Union congregation) isn't. Churches with a turnover of under £100k aren't obliged to register.

That's because you can claim "blanket" covering under the BUGB through the "Excepting Regulations". In time these may be phased out. Such a situation would not obtain for an independent church. However, I don't think that any church is, of necessity, required to act as a charity - though most do so.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I did see one of these fly-on-the-wall documentaries - think it was called 'Rev' or some such - where the incumbent suffered severe depression as a result of a scurrilous Mystery Worshipper report.

Such things shouldn't be allowed.

Wot - banning "Rev"? Is outrage!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Rev a 'fly on the wall documentary'?

[Eek!]

Tell that to Tom Hollander and Olivia Coleman ...

But you jest, I take it ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rev a 'fly on the wall documentary'?

Tell that to Tom Hollander and Olivia Coleman ...

But you jest, I take it ...

Well, some 'proper' vicars thought it was very realistic....

I should say I'm glad to hear that some MW Reports lead to positive changes. I imagine this is most likely to happen when the visitor and the church visited belong to fairly similar Christian traditions.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Oh, the many issues with church websites. Near me is an old and interesting URC church (formerly a Congregationalist church, and is the second-oldest church in the town - from the building shape, I think it is a converted barn) which somewhat unusually comes with an old and lovely churchyard - the area seems to have been strongly Nonconformist and particularly important for Quakers, so I assume it was the local Dissenters graveyard. The church's website is a hideous eye-searing mess akin to a 2000s Geocities site, and makes no mention whatsoever of the church's history or even the churchyard (and you can't see the churchyard from the road because of a hedge). What a waste!

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

Yes - I am indeed jesting about the factual and obviously non-fictional nature of 'Rev',
but at times it looks remarkably like 'reality'.

But in returning to the OP, I used to live on Aigburth Road, - where 'Grave' Fellowship is - and I never ever saw anyone enter or leave the building at any time.

In my day I was convinced it was just a very large white Christian notice board.

Sadly , back in those days, Grace had a reputation in local church circles for never interacting with any other church group in the area - even those of a similar style.

Love to know if that's changed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Our nearest big town has a place like that: started as an FE place with great fanfare, it has a website that boasts of 'hundreds' welcoming Jesus into their hearts, etc (sure you get the picture) advertising all sorts of fellowships and groups.

But the building is always locked and the well kept grounds can be glimpsed but not enjoyed, nestling as they do behind very high, spiked railings topped with razor wire - this on the outskirts of an old county town not known as a crime hotspot.

Makes you wonder [Confused]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Ah but, you see, the hundreds who have welcomed Jesus into their hearts have now themselves been welcomed into the safety to be found behind that razor wire, and they no longer have to engage with the evil of the Real World......

....I hope not, though, as that way madness lies.

We have a Cornerstone City Church (I think that's their title) meeting in our parish every Sunday morning (they use a 6th-form college). AFAIK, they have no contact with any other church, and apparently no outreach into the immediate area. Doubtless they are good Christian people living out the Gospel in their weekday lives (though trying to poach people from our local Baptist congregation is not a Good Thing).

Ian J.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0