I'm not an architectural expert, but my overall reaction is "yucch". While there are certainly diocesan churches that are as bad, on the whole, the chances of finding one that's even a little more inspiring strike me as considerably greater -- what's the point of going to such a tiny, mousy venue? Faux Shakespearean English in the prayer book? Is that all?
My regular correspondent reports that since 1991 they have shared the church with a Romanian Orthodox congregation which is now in the process of building its own church. This raises the question of how they will compensate for loss of rental income from the Orthodox group, but it also raises the question of how an Orthodox group is able to outgrow the venue, while the OCSP group is apparently not.
My regular correspondent provided these interior views from Ms Gyapong's blog:
It looks like the pews are capable of seating four adults abreast comfortably, which puts the maximum capacity of the nave in the neighborhood of 50. Decoration is sparse indeed, and I see no evidence of traditional Catholic icons or stations of the cross, though they may be out of view. Again, I'm not sure why someone would choose to go to mass here when there are so many more inspiring options.
The second interior photo raises questions for me similar to the ones the toddler photo raised that my correspondent mentions. For starters, it is simply not good practice in these times to post photos of minor children on social media, and given the Church's focus on protecting children, I hope more mature parties will provide guidance to Ms Gyapong on this matter.
A second issue goes to one thing I always liked about being Episcopalian, the question of restraint, which it seems to me keys to the philosophical virtues of prudence and temperance. Ms Gyapong seems to take photos during mass with some frequency. I ushered at several Episcopal parishes, and we ushers were instructed that cameras were not allowed in the nave, and we were to inform anyone bringing a camera in of this policy. My wife and I, in fact, requested that the wedding photographer and family members adhere to this policy at our wedding.
Beyond that, photography is not permitted inside many public places in the US, including courthouses, hospitals, supermarkets, and fast food outlets. But here we seem to see someone taking a photo of what looks like the exchange of peace during mass, complete with at least one ostentatious hug, perhaps for the camera. At best this is tacky, but it's also a distraction from a reverent celebration, and it's also, at least potentially, an invasion of privacy.
Finally, my regular correspondent notes,
I saw an article recently about parish growth which included the question "Does your parish have a shallow end?" If I were thinking about checking out a (new) place of worship, other than as someone's guest, my first step would be the web. Assuming I can find something there, . . I would want to see a picture of the whole set up. Not the altar, or the sanctuary party, but the whole space where I would find myself. Could I lurk at the back, or in the midst of a crowd? Or would I be conspicuous in a small chapel or a very small group of worshippers? That is not to say that joining a handful of strangers in the Oratory of St Swithun is totally off the table, but I would want to be prepared for that situation. I always suspect that event pictures which show only the sanctuary are meant to conceal the fact that attendance was sparse[.] In any event, it would take a similarly robust ego for anyone to plunge into their local OCSP gathering, since it would typically be in at the deep end, with no lights on.I get that feeling about the Ottawa group, indeed with the concern that a church lady would grab a picture of me.
Given the disadvantages the OCSP starts with in attracting new members, it seems to me that there are steps it might well consider taking in avoiding practices that actively discourage them.
