Pete Ward came out with a new “theological” concept of the church is being under development in the UK. In his book titled Liquid Church, he challenges us to think theologically about the “church” (the body of Christ). In a special interview with Pete Ward on the youth specialties website you can read about some of his ideas about the liquid church concept. On the same site a link takes us to another article, titled Why we need liquid church, where we can learn more about Pete’s thoughts on this subject.
Johnny Baker says, “Peter Ward revolutionized thinking about youth ministry in the UK from being program-based to relational, from being reactive to reflective, and from being amateur to professional. I’d say he has helped youth ministry grow up.” The following question comes to mind when I try to digest a statement like that, what is the standard that youth ministry needs to grow up to? As younger generations are looking for the authentic way of church and people come with emerging, and new cutting edge ideas for “doing church”, and “being the church” there is a danger in the new cutting edge, emerging movement that someone will “cut” off too much of the “edges.”
Ward makes a distinction between solid church and liquid church in his study. He defines solid church, “getting together in one place to do the same thing together.” It relies on counting, and gathering. On the other hand liquid church consists of informal fellowship, not related to buildings, and does not need a weekly congregational meeting but “living as Christ’s body in the world.” Ward also defines Liquid Church as “a church that goes out to find its members whether or not they show up on a Sunday morning and participate in all the things we think of as church.”
Furthermore, Ward shows his idea through an example that was used in the interview which was a boat floating in water. People, so many times, compared the church to the boat that sails through the culture, however, Ward’s revolutionary thought was to become like that water (liquid) and “become flexible, fluid, changeable, and embrace and internalize the liquid nature of culture rather than just sail through it.” However, it raises a few troubling questions to think this way. While liquid conforms and changes shape, what do we measure this shape to? What are the cultural dynamics that we will adapt to? If we look at the early church which was relational and at the same time did not compromise with the culture, she managed to grow and increase in numbers. She was not the most flexible, not liquid like and the members paid a great price. So, where do we draw the line as a post-modern society, whether in Europe or in the USA, in our adaptation to the dynamics of the society? To put it bluntly, what will dictate in our lives; the Bible to the society or the society to the Bible?
Ward challenges us in his article to think outside of the box. Having said that, it raises questions about the liquid church idea as people yearn in their soul for something, as authentic and intimate, people had in the first century. My question for the liquid aspect is the following; how condense is the fluid? Is it only water that we pour in a bottle and takes up the bottle’s shape then we can mix cool aid and sugar in it and we can drink it? Or are we talking about a fluid which is condense and when something that does not conform to it then it can not be mixed in it? Like oil floats on the surface of cold water. It is necessary to be flexible but how far do we go with that? What do we let in our lives and what not?
What is an informal fellowship? Do people really long for community? Do they really want to experience what people experienced in the first century? “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with gland and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” (NIV) Is this what we long for in our ministry? My original question still stands; how liquid these people were? Are people ready in the 21st century to be like people in the 1st century?
The liquid church concept could be used in the forefront of the church for evangelism, outreach, and mission. However, the body of Christ is living organism. It breaths and with each breath more people should come in the church. When people are in the “church”, whether it is related to a building, or has the liquid church concept at hand, the real aspect of it should be that people go out into the world and will bring in more people. This can be accomplished through teaching, instructing, and educating believers what the true church of God looks like. Following Jesus model in his ministry everything revolved around relations. He passed this down to his disciples and they passed it down to other generations. We need to keep the legacy of teaching others to keep his commandments and with that bring more people in the body of Christ(Church).
What are your thoughts?
Article contributed by Viktor Rozsa, a Senior Youth Ministry major at Ohio Christian University.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Jake,
I didn't have time to read your whole post, so this will probably bite me on the butt...
The first part is (the summary of LC), if it is a complete summary, does not seem to be anything groundbreaking, does it? YM needing to be relational, not reactive, etc. I'm not that closely involved with YM anymore, and I've heard this for years (many of my friends were YM'ers.)
"(The Early Church) She was not the most flexible, not liquid like and the members paid a great price. So, where do we draw the line as a post-modern society, whether in Europe or in the USA, in our adaptation to the dynamics of the society? To put it bluntly, what will dictate in our lives; the Bible to the society or the society to the Bible?"
Don't you think you are sounding a little alarmist in your thinking? I know caution is a good trade, but you are sounding border-line King James only (you know what I mean). A change in method doe not necessarily mean the message is watered down or changed...
BTW, nice spam... you may want to add the anonymous post protection.
Bitter in Ohio
Dear Bitter-in-ohio,
Thanks for your post. Couple of quick items. 1) The article was submitted by one of my students (so perhaps it has bit you in the but) and 2) this is not totally a YM article nor concept - it is based on the book "Liquid Church" which is getting a great deal of pub with church growth gurus.
I don't know that viktor sounds all that alarmist. He and I agree that change in method is very important. However, he does draw a great question, "when and where do we draw the line?" or "When does the change actually stretch beyond merely method?"
If you get a chance, I strongly recommend you pick up Pete Ward's Liquid Church.
As always, a pleasure.
Jake/Viktor,
Sorry, I meant no disrespect. I do stand by what I said, but I'll expand it to include both YM and the Church on whole. Its not a new concept.
BTW, seriously filter the post SPAM.
Bitter in Ohio
Bitter,
You take a monumental jump in saying his ideas sound KJV only. His statement is a true one that we cannot be too liquidy (word?). The church has always had a problem with conforming too much with culture.
Also, while you are right in saying that it's not "ground breaking" go to most youth groups in america and you'll see these actions have not been put in place yet. Like it or not, while the ivory tower has discussed the implications for post-modernity since the 70's, it has yet to trickle down to the grass roots.
And you're right it's not new .. that's the beauty of it. A lot of the emerging church culture is about returning to what the church was before.
That being said I would disagree with viktor a bit. I do believe the early church was flowing. It didn't just meet, it was everywhere. Even it's theology was flowing through the councils and morphing until it grew to what we know today.
Aaron,
As I observed your comments concerning my article, I would like to respond to your thoughts. First, I would caution you using the post-modern thought. This is a touchy subject in our day and age. Also, if you start a thought objectively it needs to be finished objectively. I perceive from your statement that you shift from objectivity to subjectivity, “it has yet to trickle down to the grass roots.”
Secondly, I would like to react to the comment of “what the church was before.” Are you talking about the first century church here? Are you talking about Acts 2? There is a difference between the congregation that is present in Acts 2 and the rest of the congregations that came about after the first great persecution of the Christians. While the church grew and more people became part of the body of Christ, that brought more issues to the table and those needed to be addressed. So, this “emerging church culture” is longing to return to what? What is your understanding of what was the church before?
Thirdly, I never stated that the church was not flowing. They were vibrant. People liked them, “having favor with all the people.” (Acts 2:47a) My point was contrary. Even in my question, “Are people ready in the 21st century to be like people in the 1st century?” I am implying their “flowing”, vibrant, active, and energetic existance as the living body of Christ. They really lived, were a true community, and shared (possession, money, food, clothing, etc.).Our time is twenty centuries removed from the 1st century lifestyle. When one looks at today’s man’s thinking (the Western thinking that is present in most of the modern countries), it is undoubtably different from the 1st century’s Greco-Roman and Jewish mindset. This brings up the corporate worship aspect of the liquid church.
It was a Jewish custom since the time of Exodus. The community and gathering together for worship is in the blood of the Jewish nation. They camped for 40 years in the wilderness and YHWH tabernacled with them as he led them to the promise land. This Jewish understanding is far removed from the individualistic and humanistic western thinking and culture. While people live in a culture where they wave to one another as they pull out of their garage on their way to work and wave to their neighbors as they come home from work straight back into their garage with the car, where does real interaction happen among people today. They are so busy that they do not have time to even stop and say hello. (it might seem a small thing but it goes further on the interpersonal levels: “Hello! How are you?” – and the person walks off. There is not much interaction, real relation (again the well used relational aspect in ministry) even in the church and that draws people back to the very nature of humans created in the image of God to be social.People can not be the church on their own. They need to meet together. It meant in Acts 2 that they met in the temple courts daily. Meeting daily is flowing, vibrant, and energetic as I said earlier. In her yearning of the 21st century church people really realize what it would take them to be like an Acts 2 church again? Do they really long for it authentically or do they just talk the talk and do not want to walk the walk? And it brings agains the challengin question to one’s attention, “To put it bluntly, what will dictate in our lives; the Bible to the society or the society to the Bible?”
Futhermore, the early church was flowing because of the persecution. It was spreading through the Diasporas and with the ever increasing persecutions the number of believers increased too. It made it possible for the early church to be everywhere in her beginning. As in communist China today, the persecution led to the underground church movement. The largest underground church in China is 10,000,000 people (that is the amount of people live today in my country). There are Christians all over in China and they want to take the gospel back to Jerusalem. They are ready to be persecuted. They live a flowing life that is focused on community and in a sense of 1st century mindset. They have an understanding of what it meant to be living in Jerusalem or any other parts of the Roman Empire where a Christians life was in danger after 64 A.D. How does a westerner understand and look at persecution today?
Finally, if the early churches theology was truly flowing through the councils then we would still have “one catholic and apostolic church”. If people truly let the first century church be present at the councils then we do not talk about a morphing process. Every ecumentical council was called together because “the Gospel was at stake” (Prof. Adkins’s lectures from Church History, 2006 Fall). There was an emergency to talk against that morphing process, (maybe with today language too liquid) and they had to deal with the heretics. They excommunicated them and back that it was a serious act to “throw” someone out of the one Church. All these councils and synods happened because some early church fathers taught something that was contrary to the theology laid down in the gospels and the pastoral letters. The early church was not flexible. They were fighting for their very existance until 312 A.D. Then as persecution eased on them, they started to lay down some of the principles of their beliefs. However, there were some who did not let emprors, philosophers, and other “rs” dictate to the scriptures. Today’s theology needs some serious study. There is a mixture of good and bad theology out there in the churches. They are mixed with humans thoughts, they are corrupting the people’s thinking and church people have a messed up thelological thinking. How will the church give an account to Christ one day to the Jn 13:34-35 commandment? We are supposed to be united. Since people missed that understanding and moved away the true Acts 2 understanding, churches became what people are and not what Jesus intended them to be.
My point is still how careful are we, when we sit down to talk about things like the Liquid Church, the emerging ideas of today’s age, and how much credit do we give to the old? There is nothing new under the sun. People just go back to what people used to do and give it a nice sounding good name. However, it would be better to have a “sound doctrine” in everyone’s life and they would know how to go about church and help the true church happen.
Viktor
Viktor,
You: As I observed your comments concerning my article, I would like to respond to your thoughts. First, I would caution you using the post-modern thought. This is a touchy subject in our day and age.
Me: While post modern thought may be controversial it has arrived. As a church we cannot ignore the shift in world-view and mindset. It has been going on for quite sometime, and has been written on and discussed by chuch leaders for decades (see Thomas Odem "After modernity what?", Brian Mclaren "Generous Orthodoxy", Rober Webbber "Younger Evnangelicals.)
You: Also, if you start a thought objectively it needs to be finished objectively. I perceive from your statement that you shift from objectivity to subjectivity, “it has yet to trickle down to the grass roots.”
Me: Umm.. I'd say that most of my statements were subjective. I'm not sure I ever stated any "objective" fact throughout my comment. (I won't start a debate about the plausibility of true objectivity today)
You: Thirdly, I never stated that the church was not flowing.
Me: I took this statement "we look at the early church which was relational and at the same time did not compromise with the culture, she managed to grow and increase in numbers. She was not the most flexible, not liquid like ..." to mean that you felt as if it was not flexaible or liquid i.e. flowing. My appologies if I misunderstood.
You: "third point"
Me: I'm not sure that you are disagreeing with me here. You say that the early church was flowing, it was an everyday thing, it was more than just a worship service, but it was meeting together and being together. That vibrant, flowing experience you are talking about seems to be what the "emerging movement" is looking for daily worship, and recognizing that worship is more than just meeting on sunday saying hello and then peacing out.
You: Finally, if the early churches theology was truly flowing through the councils then we would still have “one catholic and apostolic church”. If people truly let the first century church be present at the councils then we do not talk about a morphing process.
Me: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
You:"if the early churches theology was truly flwoing through the councils then we would still have "one catholic and apostolic church".
ME: Are you denying the councils as true theology? I think church splits had much more to do with the protestant reformation than the councils. I would be very careful about talking poorly about the councils.
You:If people truly let the first century church be present at the councils then we do not talk about a morphing process.
Me: Are you saying the church was not present at these councils? That the councils that brought us the trinity, the cannon, and Orthadoxy are wrong? I'd like a little more clarity here.
You: My point is still how careful are we, when we sit down to talk about things like the Liquid Church, the emerging ideas of today’s age, and how much credit do we give to the old?
Me: A lot of the emerging church movement is about taking things back to the old.
you: however, it would be better to have a “sound doctrine” in everyone’s life and they would know how to go about church and help the true church happen.
Me: Umm... I'm not sure sound doctorine will fix all of the problems in the church. The true church is happening and always will. To quote a famous early church father "The church ... she may be *dirty* but she is still my mother.
I think that this is a great article because it really makes you think. Where do you draw the line? Is there too much of fellowship in a non-traditional atmosphere? I think that I agree with Viktor when he says that there need to be a balance between the liquid church and the soild church. I think that you can use a lot of the liquid churches' ideas in evangelism and outreach, but if you do not use some of the soild churches' methods then your church will suffer. What I mean is that when there is no accountablity then people aren't accountable. Meeting at a specific building for "church" is really in my opinion a great way to keep others accountable to a regular worship with one another. Granted I agree that the church is not the building in which people meet, but it is the people. Sometimes I do think that people don't remember this. As a youth minister, I think that the most important thing that a person can do is have relationships with their teens and therefore having the non-formal meetings and just being friends is important, but if you don't have the formal meetings, then I think you are missing something in your walk with Christ.
David,
Excellent points and I agree. While the church must be more than a building and a once a week meeting, there must be a ballance. The worship service has always been the "crown jewel" of Christianity. Whether it be the mass, or the sunday morning service, there is something about this meeting together where the sacrements are administered, the community rightly ordered and the word of God proclaimed, that God meets with his people.
Post a Comment