Liquid Church

[jaffree]

Hey everybody! I'm new on the CS forums and as I scrolled down the forums and threads, I was drawn to this forum. I have been offered a place to study Theology at Queen's University Belfast, but one of my favourite topics to discuss is the direction in which the Christian church is headed. So I would value your views on this topic...

You're probably wondering what on earth the title of this thread means, so I shall elaborate in time.

To understand what liquid church is you have to not view church as a gathering of people at a specific time and place, but a web of relationships and networks meeting at a variety of times and places. Liquid Church is founded on the basis that church happens when people are motivated to communicate with each other and with God. An example of Liquid Church is the simple act of two or three Christians meeting for coffee to talk. Some may say that this falls under the strict title of "Fellowship" but this moves this simple act towards organisation and pattern. In other words, Solid Church.

The main motivation of Liquid Church is not "Ecclesiology" but "Missiology". The organisation of the current church is thus:

Theology [knowledge of God]

Ecclesiology [how that knowledge is applied to church structure]

Missiology [how the church reaches the unchurched community]

---------------

Liquid church however, proposes a different way:

Theology [knowledge of God]

Missiology [how the church reaches the unchurched community]

Ecclesiology [how that is applied to church structure]

In other words, we should change how we structure church so that we can meet the unchurched.

---------------

It is vital that we find fresh expressions of what church is so that we can revive what is left of the Christian Church. Only then can we fulfil Jesus' mission to poor and the lost in this world.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on this issue!

jaffree

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In other words, we should change how we structure church so that we can meet the unchurched.

I think this is a fine idea, and any theology of the church should begin with teleology- that is, an understanding of the end purpose of the church.

That said, I think there are a few universal things to be said about the church that cannot be changed in order to reach nonbelievers- like dumbing down the gospel to the point where it attracts numbers, but no longer contains the content and object of saving faith, or changing a church so much to the point where it no longer qualifies as a church.

 

[Iosias]

we should change how we structure church so that we can meet the unchurched.

Surely we should change our structure to be closer to the Scriptural pattern?

 

[a_ntv]

It is vital that we find fresh expressions of what church is so that we can revive what is left of the Christian Church. Only then can we fulfil Jesus' mission to poor and the lost in this world.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on this issue!

Well, that is nothing new.

In any base course of Catholic Ecclesiology you are teached that to be missionary is NOT an attibute of the Church, something that the Church simply shall do, but it is a part of the essence of the Church.

To be Missionary is to be Apostolic: this has a meaning more wide that to evangelize: it means to bring anyone, more and more to Christ.

If you see the Church only as a (more or less visible) institution made of faithfulls that can be difficoult to understand.
But if you see the Church (like Catholics do) as the path to became more and more in Him, it is clear that to be missionary (liquid ) cames before to be an institution.

 

[NewToLife]

It is vital that we find fresh expressions of what church is so that we can revive what is left of the Christian Church. Only then can we fulfil Jesus' mission to poor and the lost in this world.

I'm really not sure that is in fact an accurate assertion.

The (protestant) mainstream churches here in the UK have been pursuing this goal since the 1960's. It is often asserted that it's the way we have to go but the evidence we have doesnt actually seem to back that claim up. In hard numbers the Churches that have moved the most to appeal to the masses have seen catastophic attendance drops. A more conservative Church such as Roman Catholicism has in fact fared much better, it also has seen attendence fall but not nearly so dramatically.

The type of Evangelical protestantism that reaches out to the wider society presents a misleading picture here in the UK, there are fantastic success stories such as Holy Trinity Brompton under Nicky Gumble's leadership but the reality overall is that these groups are not even able to maintain current congregations let alone engage in missionary work on any real scale. The odd success ( I'd speculate based on the remarkable talents of a small group of people rather than the approach they have adopted ) isnt enough to compensate for the failure of the approach as a whole. The only Christian groups currently growing in the UK are the Orthodox ( who are both small and extremely resistant to change ) and certain pentacostal groups who have heavy growth largely amongst specific minority groups. Outside of Christianity we see Islam faring quite well also whilst making essentially no effort to accomodate modern societal tastes.

Before considering what your new expressions can be you should probably question whether they are actually needed at all or whether what is actually required is a return to a previous expression of the faith.

 

[jaffree]

Surely we should change our structure to be closer to the Scriptural pattern?

Firstly, I would like to say that this is not necessarily the case. We look at the church in Acts 2 and we automatically assume that that is the model. The attributes of the early church in Acts are merely descriptive and not prescriptive - in other words, they are not something we must do. God acts through the church in different ways at different times and the Biblical account is not always applicable to us.

---------------

The (protestant) mainstream churches here in the UK have been pursuing this goal since the 1960's. It is often asserted that it's the way we have to go but the evidence we have doesnt actually seem to back that claim up. In hard numbers the Churches that have moved the most to appeal to the masses have seen catastophic attendance drops. A more conservative Church such as Roman Catholicism has in fact fared much better, it also has seen attendence fall but not nearly so dramatically.

Secondly, I struggle with why you are occupied with numbers and such. The old joke goes that the less people there are, the more the room for the spirit to move. Tell me, what will we achieve by looking at numbers of church attendance. It's not a nosecount for church I am looking for. It's a show of hands for salvation...

Jaff

 

[Iosias]

Firstly, I would like to say that this is not necessarily the case. We look at the church in Acts 2 and we automatically assume that that is the model. The attributes of the early church in Acts are merely descriptive and not prescriptive - in other words, they are not something we must do. God acts through the church in different ways at different times and the Biblical account is not always applicable to us.

Says who?

 

[Iosias]

The only Christian groups currently growing in the UK are the Orthodox ( who are both small and extremely resistant to change ) and certain pentacostal groups who have heavy growth largely amongst specific minority groups.

Always blowing your party trumpet eh

 

[heron]

I wouldn't confine the liquid aspect to missiology, though. Most people need the social network of friendly spiritual conversations, just to get through the struggles of life.

Congratulations on study plans!

 

[NewToLife]

Secondly, I struggle with why you are occupied with numbers and such. The old joke goes that the less people there are, the more the room for the spirit to move. Tell me, what will we achieve by looking at numbers of church attendance. It's not a nosecount for church I am looking for. It's a show of hands for salvation...

In general I'm interested in what evidence there is that assertions such as the one you made are true. Numbers are easily available hard evidence and in this case they simply contradict what you are saying, what evidence we have is that new approaches tend to drive people out of the Church not bring them in. It is quite foolish to simply ignore the evidence available, when souls are at risk its frankly worse than foolish.

Unfortunately the road to hell often really is paved with good intentions. That is why I am concerned with evidence and not simply soundbites.

 

[heymikey80]

Surely we should change our structure to be closer to the Scriptural pattern?

I'd sure say "Yes". I would also think though that this movement has something to tell us about the Scriptural pattern and recommendation.

The early church was more invitational, more engaging of the culture around it. I've often been impressed to notice how little the church unsettles people, how much of a fixture it's become -- either silently accepting and assimilating every deeper and deeper error of humankind, or isolating and rejecting that humankind. A redemptive approach is patently what's needed for this generation.

That need has met with mixed comparisons when people have reviewed the "liquid church" movement. Is the "liquid church" simply immersing the church in the world -- and thus simply assimilating? Or is it redeeming the world, being a kind of "salty liquid" -- a bit of a sting, but also a healing salve?

 

[JoeNah]

Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
Teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.