Does Mystery Worship have a future?
Amanda B Reckondwyth
8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
in The Styx
On another thread I expressed the wish . . .
A Shipmate replied in part:
I don't take issue with any of that.
And yet I know that there are many Shipmates who tune in regularly to virtual services. They must be getting something out of them, or they wouldn't bother. I myself have tuned in to several. Some were meaningful and worshipful, some were not. Certainly even the best virtual service cannot inspire one in the same way that a meaningful, worshipful in-person service could. But it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
Mystery Worship has always been about how a church service looks to an outsider, a first-time visitor. Oftentimes the Mystery Worship project has been criticized as mere reviews, critiques, nit-picking. It is not that, although admittedly some reports do lean in that direction. In the past, some reports that were filed were rejected without being posted because they leaned too much that way. Others that leaned that way were posted after being mildened up via editing.
But the very best reports have always been an unbiased account of what the worship experience was like for the reporter as an outsider, a first-time visitor. "O wad some power the giftie gie us" and all that.
From my point of view, there is no reason why a report of a virtual service cannot present the reader, who may be looking for a virtual service to attend, with an honest and complete account of what the experience was like for the reporter. Of course it was abridged. Of course it was lacking elements that would be included if the service were being conducted without restraints. But was it worshipful for what it was? Was it meaningful for what it was? Was the reporter glad he watched? Would he watch again -- or, better still, would he attend a live service at this church once it is again possible to do so? Or was it nothing more than watching a TV show or a movie of a service? Was it impossible to get a feel for what that particular church is really like?
Yes, there are a number of questions in the MW questionnaire that don't seem to fit virtual services. Did anyone greet you personally? Of course not, but was a greeting extended to those watching on-line?
Was your pew comfortable? Few of us have pews at home, but what about your desk chair? Your lounge chair if that's where you watched the service from?
What happened after the service when you hung around looking lost? Well, of course that didn't happen, but how did the service end? Did the YouTube or Facebook feed end abruptly or gracefully?
And of course there was no after-service coffee, but did you have lunch after the service ended? If so, what?
Indeed, several reports of virtual services have been filed over the past several months. Unfortunately, most of them were mine. I don't like to do that. I don't think I should be monopolizing the feature, and I try not to. But of the reports filed, mine as well as others, some were of services that were almost -- almost -- as good as the "real thing." Others were clearly TV shows or movies -- slick, well put together (and in some cases not so slick and sloppily put together), but still far from the real thing.
I don't want Mystery Worship to die. I want to see it continue to thrive. But I can't do it all by myself.
What is the future of Mystery Worship?
That Mystery Worship will revive and thrive. I seem to be the only one filing reports lately, and I don't like to monopolize the feature.
A Shipmate replied in part:
I think there are a variety of reasons for why we maybe haven’t had more. . . . It can be harder to concentrate when watching an online service. . . . You’re not immersed in the service like you are in person. . . . I’m pretty much just watching a TV show. It may be a meaningful TV show, but it’s not really worshipful for me.
Add to that, I think many watch virtual services knowing they’re not really what would be happening if people were gathered. They may be shorter, some bits may be dropped or shortened, there’s not the music or singing there might be otherwise. . . . Plus, a number of the MW questions don’t really fit . . . the kinds of questions and answers that really give one a feel for a church as a whole, not just an impression of those in the chancel. Without them, it seems to be just a partial picture, if that makes any sense.
I don't take issue with any of that.
And yet I know that there are many Shipmates who tune in regularly to virtual services. They must be getting something out of them, or they wouldn't bother. I myself have tuned in to several. Some were meaningful and worshipful, some were not. Certainly even the best virtual service cannot inspire one in the same way that a meaningful, worshipful in-person service could. But it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
Mystery Worship has always been about how a church service looks to an outsider, a first-time visitor. Oftentimes the Mystery Worship project has been criticized as mere reviews, critiques, nit-picking. It is not that, although admittedly some reports do lean in that direction. In the past, some reports that were filed were rejected without being posted because they leaned too much that way. Others that leaned that way were posted after being mildened up via editing.
But the very best reports have always been an unbiased account of what the worship experience was like for the reporter as an outsider, a first-time visitor. "O wad some power the giftie gie us" and all that.
From my point of view, there is no reason why a report of a virtual service cannot present the reader, who may be looking for a virtual service to attend, with an honest and complete account of what the experience was like for the reporter. Of course it was abridged. Of course it was lacking elements that would be included if the service were being conducted without restraints. But was it worshipful for what it was? Was it meaningful for what it was? Was the reporter glad he watched? Would he watch again -- or, better still, would he attend a live service at this church once it is again possible to do so? Or was it nothing more than watching a TV show or a movie of a service? Was it impossible to get a feel for what that particular church is really like?
Yes, there are a number of questions in the MW questionnaire that don't seem to fit virtual services. Did anyone greet you personally? Of course not, but was a greeting extended to those watching on-line?
Was your pew comfortable? Few of us have pews at home, but what about your desk chair? Your lounge chair if that's where you watched the service from?
What happened after the service when you hung around looking lost? Well, of course that didn't happen, but how did the service end? Did the YouTube or Facebook feed end abruptly or gracefully?
And of course there was no after-service coffee, but did you have lunch after the service ended? If so, what?
Indeed, several reports of virtual services have been filed over the past several months. Unfortunately, most of them were mine. I don't like to do that. I don't think I should be monopolizing the feature, and I try not to. But of the reports filed, mine as well as others, some were of services that were almost -- almost -- as good as the "real thing." Others were clearly TV shows or movies -- slick, well put together (and in some cases not so slick and sloppily put together), but still far from the real thing.
I don't want Mystery Worship to die. I want to see it continue to thrive. But I can't do it all by myself.
What is the future of Mystery Worship?
Comments
I agree completely.
But how comfortable your chair is, or what you had for lunch, tells the reader nothing at all about the church, nor does it allow the church to learn how a visitor experienced his or her visit. It’s simply irrelevant to the report.
I wonder if there should be some different questions to use for virtual services—questions that reflect the different constraints (and opportunities?) of the virtual medium. What platform was used, and did it allow for any interaction? Did any welcome reflect there might be visitors, or did they seem to expect “their own” only? How easy was it to access the service? To find out how to access it? Were resources, such as a bulletin/order of service or graphics, readily available so that you could follow along and participate? Were visitors at informed about and invited to take advantage of other ways to connect with the church? How was music handled? Was the service live, pre-recorded, or a mixture? Were there any means by which those worshiping could, if they wanted to, connect with each other before, during or after the service?
And as you say, did it make you want to check them out in person when able to do so?
I’m sure there are other, possibly better, questions.
As another who’d very much like to see MW continue (and I do think that it’ll be better when more people can gather again, though I also think virtual service are here to stay), I’d be interested what some of the regular MWers think.
That said, I’m inclined to agree with Nick Tamen that it’s worth thinking about tweaking the questions a bit for virtual worship - perhaps a separate Virtual Mystery Worshipper stream if something of the sort is practicable. The whole “how well did they translate their service to the Internet” angle would interest me as a reader and I imagine is something that some people might be interested in writing about.
I've always enjoyed reading Mystery Worship and found it helpful when travelling and looking for a church to attend in some unfamiliar city. Perhaps the format could be more flexible or other kinds of input considered?
The more who do that, the more reports Miss Amanda has to edit, but I'm sure she won't mind!
Some creativity is perhaps necessary when reporting on a virtual service, but the end result will be no more the worse for that.
Under the old software, I as Lead Editor was able to edit the questionnaire form. Not that I did so often -- but there were one or two questions that I thought could use some refining, and I always ran my suggestions by Simon before I actually made any changes.
Under the new software, however, everything is programmed into the code, and I don't have access to it. Changing the questionnaire would involve retaining the services of the programmer, and I don't think he would do it pro bono.
Answers to questions such as what platform was used, was the service easy to access and did it allow for interaction, were visitors made to feel comfortable or was it a closed club "members only" thing, etc. could be -- and, in many cases, have been -- worked into answers to the existing questions.
My sense of how Mystery Worshippers approached the project in the past is, of course, colored by my own experiences. When traveling to a distant city, I always tried to visit a church in that city and report on it. When I stayed at home, I still tried to travel to nearby neighborhoods or suburbs, but was not shy about reporting on churches in my own neighborhood, especially those of denominations different from my own.
As for the virtual services I have reported on, I have tried to choose churches that have been in the news, or which are famous in their own right, or which are located in interesting places.
As well, we have always encouraged reports on newsworthy church services: seating of a new bishop, Royal visitation, historic commemoration, funeral of a dignitary, closing of a church, and the like.
I am encouraged by the positive comments people have made. As for becoming a Mystery Worshipper, the application process is not difficult. In the sidebar of every report is a link to click on if you'd like to become a Mystery Worshipper. There are no more than a half dozen or so questions in the form, and once you submit it, you're more likely than not "in."
In short, Mystery Worship is what we make it to be. If a new questionnaire could be developed to reflect more accurately the conditions under which we are forced to worship these days, that would of course be ideal. However, as explained, I don't think that's likely to happen. I do think, though, that we can work around the limitations of the present form in order to produce interesting and meaningful reports.
While the feature remains in the doldrums, however, I would like to resurrect some old reports from the archives and feature them from time to time on the MW home page, as I did with the Nativity report. Epiphany is next.
Archive reports are always welcome to us readers - if only as a reminder that Fings Ain't Wot They Useter Be...!
As I said, I think we’ll see a return to MW normalcy when we see a return to real-life normalcy. I certainly hope so!! And I do like the idea of resurrecting some of MW’s archival reports!
When I joined the Ship 20 years ago, the idea of an online magazine was still a new and exciting concept and the Mystery Worshipper was by far the biggest feature of the magazine, so much so that it had quite a large team of editors. If I ever mentioned Ship of Fools to anyone, the first thing they invariably mentioned was the Mystery Worshipper by name. I heard it mentioned in sermons at various places. There was almost a “badge of honour” to have been visited and to have a report published. It was so influential that sometimes churches even approached the Ship directly and asked to be reviewed. The feature was unique to the extent that The Ship once threatened a Church of England diocese with legal action for using an almost identical format in their diocesan newsletter. It was even alluded to on the TV comedy series Rev, albeit under a different name.
But that was then and this is now.
Nowadays if I mention Ship of Fools I often get a blank look. Those who do remember the Ship say something along the lines of “is that still going” often followed by “do they still do that church visitor thing?”
So what could be done? I wonder if using the exact same format that’s been in use since 1998 is the right way to continue. Perhaps the questionnaire could be changed to be a set of guidelines for writing the report rather than answering each question. At the very least, it would need some sort of relaunch to reach a wider audience.
As for Spike's comments: Those who do remember the Ship say something along the lines of “is that still going” often followed by “do they still do that church visitor thing?” - that shows a remembrance of one feature of the Ship when others have been forgotten.
I've often wondered whether the churches that begged to be visited regarded Mystery Worship as a novelty, an entertainment almost. All entertainment eventually loses its novelty. Most Brits I've talked to are surprised to learn that here in the US we were still watching and enjoying the likes of "Are You Being Served?", "Absolutely Fabulous" and "Keeping Up Appearances." (All but the latter have disappeared from our airwaves now, and if truth be told the latter is rapidly losing its appeal as well.)
I see Mystery Worship primarily as having educational value rather than entertainment value. Augustine the Aleut's several Camino de Compostela pilgrimages are a prime example. Visits to churches in denominations such as Ancient Church of the East, Korean Presbyterian Church, Restructured Church of the Holy Spirit, and Charismatic Episcopal Church are another.
That is not to say that reporters can't continue to sprinkle a bit of "salt" into their reports. I remember showing a report on a Greek Orthodox church to one of my friends who was born in Cyprus. He was especially amused by the comment re "People were lighting so many candles that I am sure the place would have burned to the ground had not a little old lady all in black been blowing them out as fast as they were lit."
And occasionally we get the "gag" report, such as reports on the Rapture and the Papal Conclave, which are purely for entertainment purposes.
I am encouraged to learn that many Shipmates are still consulting the MW page first thing when they browse the Ship. I would like to see more reports filed by a greater variety of reporters. I agree that we may be able to rework some of the questions to bring them more up-to-date, but I for one would be gravely saddened if the feature were to die.
Certainly in the UK, travel, holidays, etc. etc. are all severely curtailed, so that the (legal) opportunities of getting to a church that is open are much reduced.
As regards the format, and the questionnaire, I think they should remain as they are, apart from any minor reworking Miss Amanda may come up with.
Speaking of whom, may I take the opportunity of thanking @Amanda B Reckondwyth , not only for her own Reports, but also for the hard work she puts into the project as a whole?
This I think is very different from some churches broadcasting a service from within a church that you dont interact with. Though I noticed they did mute everyone than the person leading at any given time and muted during the hymns - which seemed sensible in the circumstances. (Unmuted during the breakout.)
I had to leave in the middle to sort out the turkey or I'd do you a proper write up.
It felt such a positive thing - they were mostly elderly folks like my Dad (83) and they'd adapted to keep their fellowship going. It felt very warm and welcoming - Dad said it was smaller than usual because there was a bigger shared service later in the day with the vicar that some would have gone to instead. (Multiple parishes, one vicar - so this service was lead be a reader or deacon I think - no vestments so not sure.)
I sometimes e-mail the church at the "info" address given on their website, or at the pastor/rector/vicar's e-mail address, with a link to the report. I use my "Amanda B. Reckondwyth" e-mail address but I also sign off with my real name.
I do realize that this would not be feasible for reporters who maintain only a single e-mail address. In that case I might consider snail-mailing the MW card to the church, using whatever return address on the envelope as fancy strikes me.
My experience of writing Mystery Worship reports was less positive as I only wrote reports for churches when I was away travelling, usually at Christmas and Easter. I had too many links with local churches not to know most of the people involved. Those reports often came with a pressure to produce Christmas and Easter reviews fast for publication. My memory is of sitting cross-legged on a bed, fighting to complete a rigid format on a tablet, using dodgy WiFi that kept crashing and trying to get something in that was fair, accurate and interesting enough not to result in additional questions and requirements that ate into my few days away - then seeing the final report changed, sometimes beyond recognition, in the editing process.
I would also suggest that there is a problem with reviewing online services. Anyone can access most services, dropping in when they want, or even reviewing the service later in their own time. To access passworded Zoom or other services requires the people involved to use e-mail and/or other forms of identification making it harder to be anonymous.
We don't apply pressure anymore. Admittedly editing was somewhat heavy-handed in previous years but not so much anymore. Primarily we conform the report to "house style" so far as grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. go, and we supply detail when same is lacking (most especially about the building or the location).
True, but they have no way of knowing which of the many Zoom attendeed is the Mystery Worshipper. Also, if you use gmail, it is easy to set up multiple e-mail accounts and to use whichever one you wish for whichever purpose.
On a previous subject, the church I then attended -- 14-15 years ago now -- received a very positive review of our Easter Eve service. Within a couple of years our worship space, our congregation and our rector had changed, so that anyone following the report would have been out in the dark and without shelter. Six months after that, the part of the congregation that hosted and ran that service had effectively dissolved and moved elsewhere. WHen I tried to get the (now completely misleading review removed) I was told (not by Miss Amanda) that only an actual warden could ask for a report to be removed.
Anyone, however, can file a comment to a report. A comment such as "Things were like that then, but are very different now" may have been appropriate.
If you'll PM me I'll look to see whether the report in question is still up.
I am another whose first exposure to the Ship was through a MW report, many years ago.
Mine too, as a matter of fact.
As a very occasional MW who hasn't filed anything for a very long time... Generally speaking, I'm tied up with my own church and can only file reports if I'm away somewhere out of Diocese (apart from the extreme south, I know too many of the local clergy).
1) I haven't been away for a while (really? I wonder why?)
2) I do routinely return to some areas, which have already been MW'ed
3) I'm increasingly finding myself choosing to have a holiday from church as well if I am away.
That said, I am also beginning to feel the need to look at online services other than my own congregation so if I do so, I may try MW again.
I have always been interested in the diversity of the Christian Church and of different traditions and practice, so the MW reports were always of interest. So the reports useful and informative in that I could see somethings that could be improved in my ministry as a Reader and also in the way that my church approached things.
My regret is that neither of the last two churches that Mrs CD was responsible for (10 years and 4 years respectively) received a visit from a Mystery Worshipper. An outsiders comments would have been helpful.
So many churches, so few active MWers.
When we moved to our current parish, I did a (non) MW report on the 3 churches in the parish and gave it to our vicar, who found it quite interesting as, at the time, it was an outsiders assessment. It also helped us decide which church should be our base.
I often find myself mentally doing a MW report at our services, and would be interested to see what a MW would make of the services zoomed for Llandaff diocese, including our parish.
so if anyone is interested in mystery worshiping....
There are also services from around the diocese on the site for Llandaff diocese.
I like to do screenshots of the YouTube, Facebook, etc. service. Shift-PrtScrn on real -- oops, I mean non-Apple -- PCs, then Ctrl-V to paste them into PhotoShop or whatever other photo software you prefer to use.
We can seldom, if ever, use photos found on-line, as they're usually copyrighted. Photos published under the Creative Commons license are OK to use -- this includes just about anything found on Wikipedia. We also consider photos found on the church's own website to be fair game unless they are clearly labeled as being copyrighted.
Have you ever had complaints that 'Did this service make you glad to be a Christian?' is missing the point?
I've just filed a report for an online service in which I participated. I have to say, it really wasn't difficult to answer the questions in a way that conveyed the online-ness of the experience, how the service was put together etc. It wasn't a livestream, which quite possibly made this easier as there was much more to say, but I don't think I would have struggled inordinately if it had been livestreamed...