I have been doing some work this week on a website for Derwent Free Church. I’m a bit of a rookie on this kind of thing and there are plenty of things to sort out yet, but here it is!
(BTW this is a shameless promotion on this blog based upon the groundless belief that Google will push it up the rankings if there are more links to it.)
UPDATE: Ooops. There is a big problem on Internet Explorer for Mac with the text Sorry if it is also true, on PC. But who cares – nobody uses IE nowadays, do they? OK, OK, I’ll try and sort it…
Doggie's Breakfast 
Couldn’t see anything wrong with the Derwent Free Church website in IE on my PC, Stephen, apart from the fact that Dorothy who runs the parents and toddlers group looks awfully young!
Well done.
Looks attractive. I didn’t realise you had a dual baptism policy – sounds good to me – does it work well?
Only issue: I couldn’t see how to get to the church…
I like the simplicity of the site. It’s attractive.
Hi Martin,
I think it works well for the simple reason that there are no people who personally subscribe to the WCF (except me and Susan, of course!)
As long as I am submissive (and I am) then everything ticks along nicely.
Thanks John and Donna!
Grammar police time 🙂
On the front page, “On Tuesday’s at 7.30pm we meet” should be “On Tuesdays at 7.30pm we meet” (i.e. no apostrophe in plurals, not even day names). This is also in the bit below on the front page but for Wednesday.
Otherwise, it looks nice. Clear and crisp. Good job!
pax et bonum
Interesting: “Perhaps the only unusual feature of this basis is that we do not insist on a single interpretation of the doctrine of Christian Baptism.“
But the church couldn’t resist: “The Elders of the Church hold the view that baptism of believers is the correct interpretation of Scripture.” So members can believe what they want, but the elders know the “correct” interpretation. Hmm! 🙂
John P.,
I am deeply ashamed! How could I…? Thanks for pointing it out, I think.
David,
Well spotted! This sentence comes from the constitution of the church and I think is due for review for the reasons you rightly identify. The language is a bit loose.
Nevertheless, I think it is right that office-bearers should hold the particular convictions the church confesses and teach them, while at the same time allowing liberty of conscience amongst members on secondary issues. After all, we are not saved, and therefore don’t become members of the church of Christ, by believing in every jot and tittle of the WCF or the LBC.