Solid and Liquid Churches

[Johnnz]

Here is an interesting extract from Michael Frost's thoughtful and stimulating book "Exiles". It will make a lot of sense to many here.


"In his book Liquid Church, Pete Ward argues that there needs to be a shift from solid church to liquid church. He defines solid church in formal, institutional parameters: a more-or-less coherent congregation with a distinct organizational structure meeting in a particular place at a particular time. In solid church, faithfulness tends to be equated with church attendance; suc[wash my mouth]cess is measured in terms of numbers; worship and teaching are standardized, producing a bland and inoffensive diet of middle-of-the-road music and safe spirituality; and membership has become an exclusive and self-serving commitment, little different sociologically from membership in a golf or tennis club.

Solid Church vs. Liquid Church​

formal v
​

informal

​

institutional v
​

Fluid

​

organized congregation v
​

relationship with others through
communion with Christ

​

structured time & place v
flexible to needs of community​

faithfulness = attendance, &
​

success = numbers v
not about the building,
​

but the spiritual activity

​

worship & teaching are standardized v
​

church is a verb, not a noun

​

membership is exclusive & self-serving v
fundamental motivation is mission

​

According to Ward, liquid church, by contrast, takes its identity from the informal and fluid notion of believers in communication with each other. This rather simple idea, if carried through in practice, has significant implications. First, liquid church is not an institution, but something that we "make with each other by communicating Christ." It exists in networks of relationships. Second, the basis for church life is found not in organizational patterns or buildings, but in people's spiritual activity. Ward reemphasizes the suggestion that "church" should be understood as a verb rather than a noun ("I church, you church, we church"). It might not seem all that radical, but rarely is it seriously embraced by many Christians today. Third, liquid church does not have to take the form of a weekly congregational meeting:

"Worship and meeting will be decentered and reworked in ways that are designed to connect to the growing spiritual hunger in society." This points to the fundamental motivation behind the idea of liquid church, which IS mission."


John
NZ

 

[faithpilgrim]

John,

Yes I relate. Unfortunately even those in the home churches don't always get that we church instead of go to a church. Being a member of the body is who we are, our whole being and not something we go to a couple of hours. It is what we do 24/7.

Faith

 

[mac8]

But even house churches can become inward looking and lose their missional focus. Has anyone read Hirschs 'The Forgotten Ways'?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Here is an interesting extract from Michael Frost's thoughtful and stimulating book "Exiles". It will make a lot of sense to many here.



"In his book Liquid Church, Pete Ward argues that there needs to be a shift from solid church to liquid church. He defines solid church in formal, institutional parameters: a more-or-less coherent congregation with a distinct organizational structure meeting in a particular place at a particular time. In solid church, faithfulness tends to be equated with church attendance; suc[wash my mouth]cess is measured in terms of numbers; worship and teaching are standardized, producing a bland and inoffensive diet of middle-of-the-road music and safe spirituality; and membership has become an exclusive and self-serving commitment, little different sociologically from membership in a golf or tennis club.

Solid Church vs. Liquid Church​

formal v

informal​

institutional v​

Fluid​

organized congregation v​

relationship with others through

communion with Christ​

structured time & place v

flexible to needs of community​

faithfulness = attendance, &​

success = numbers v

not about the building,​

but the spiritual activity​

worship & teaching are standardized v​

church is a verb, not a noun​

membership is exclusive & self-serving v

fundamental motivation is mission​

​

According to Ward, liquid church, by contrast, takes its identity from the informal and fluid notion of believers in communication with each other. This rather simple idea, if carried through in practice, has significant implications. First, liquid church is not an institution, but something that we "make with each other by communicating Christ." It exists in networks of relationships. Second, the basis for church life is found not in organizational patterns or buildings, but in people's spiritual activity. Ward reemphasizes the suggestion that "church" should be understood as a verb rather than a noun ("I church, you church, we church"). It might not seem all that radical, but rarely is it seriously embraced by many Christians today. Third, liquid church does not have to take the form of a weekly congregational meeting:

"Worship and meeting will be decentered and reworked in ways that are designed to connect to the growing spiritual hunger in society." This points to the fundamental motivation behind the idea of liquid church, which IS mission."


John
NZ

Nice article . Hopefully , this will be the next phase of the HC movement .

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Indeed. Then there's the step further to unseen/relational church.

Solid church -> Liquid church -> gaseous anomoly!

 

[New_Wineskin]

Indeed. Then there's the step further to unseen/relational church.

Solid church -> Liquid church -> gaseous anomoly!

LOL!! Or even "spirit" ? ")

Nice "seeing" you again , Neddy !!

Next week ... the big movie !!

 

[New_Wineskin]

John,

Yes I relate. Unfortunately even those in the home churches don't always get that we church instead of go to a church. Being a member of the body is who we are, our whole being and not something we go to a couple of hours. It is what we do 24/7.

Faith

Ain't that the truth !? I have seen many HG's that are merely mini-versions of the denoms .

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

And ECs.

The root trouble is community, relationships. If we cant get to know each other and live alongside each other outside of meetings, meetings will not help us to do this. Scrap them, get the relationships right (which may take years) and then maybe consider rebuilding. Otherwise you'll just rebuild the same old trash.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

And hey there Wino!

 

[JohannAT]

Ain't that the truth !? I have seen many HG's that are merely mini-versions of the denoms .

This is definitely the truth! There is something (or, Someone!) in us that just can not be satisfied with a few meetings a week, even if they are home meetings.
I believe the Spirit within each and every born-again believer in Christ longs for us to make our Church life as much 24/7 as we can. Don't ask me about details, right now all I can say is "Amen!" to the main theme of this theard.

the informal and fluid notion of believers in communication with each other.

something that we "make with each other by communicating Christ

It exists in networks of relationships.

the basis for church life is found not in organizational patterns or buildings, but in people's spiritual activity.

There is definitely something in these quotes worthy of taking to the Lord for much further consideration!

Love in Christ to all

 

[BBgrey]

But even house churches can become inward looking and lose their missional focus. Has anyone read Hirschs 'The Forgotten Ways'?

I just ordered it a couple days ago. I'm working on "The Shaping of Things to Come", co-authored by Hirsch and Frost. It is all about missional church planting (not the brick and mortar kind).

From what I can tell so far, a lot of people who call themselves "missional" are going after the same things people in home/call groups are going after and often for the same reasons. Even the description of fluid church sounds a lot like missional. If you're at all interested in checking out the missional scene, I've listed some links below.

friend of missional
open table
missional church network
mere mission

By the way, I'm new to this forum, and I'm really excited to be a part of it. You all seem like really thoughtful people. It is a refreshing little niche in CF.

bbgrey

 

[DerSchweik]

That's an interesting article - thanks for sharing it!

There are some things I like about solid churches - for one, that they are solid, rooted in their beliefs, their doctrine and fellowship. I liken it to a sturdy oak tree, dependable, reliable, broad leafy branches that bring shade to all those who seek comfort underneath. But when the sap within dries up, it dies, and can even petrify. Such a "tree" is still solid, but without life, without branches, without comforting shade.

I think it is an evangelistic spirit that keeps the "sap flowing" in even the most solid of congregations. It is possible to be both solid and fluid at the same time when the juices of fellowship are refreshed regularly with the vigor of baby Christians all around.

Life is in Him and His is an evangelistic Spirit.

We become dogmatic when we quit sharing our faith.

We become prejudiced when we no longer think of sharing our faith.

We become judgmental when we know only those around us as our friends.

I like both solid and fluid, I guess.

Thank you everyone for always striving to post thoughtful and uplifting replies.

Blessings to you all. In Him,