Networked structures: Liquid v. Solid church
If Apostolic Genius expresses itself in a movement ethos, it forms itself around a network structure. And once again this tends to be very different to what we have come to expect from our general concept of church. When we use the word “church” it is very hard to get some kind of building out of our minds. But this is not the way that phenomenal expressions of Christian movements experience it. This is due partly to the fact that the early church didn’t have such buildings and the Chinese had all their church buildings taken away from them. But it is also because buildings are not what is meant in any of the theological images of church in the Scriptures. Since Constantine it seems that we have simply got it all mixed up. On comparison, the Chinese church is much closer to what the New Testament intends, as well as more consistent with the New Testament experience, of church. It is we who are inconsistent in this regard—it’s that simple. So what do networks look like?
Liquid vs. Solid church
Peter Ward has written an excellent book exploring the theological, ecclesiological, as well as sociological dimensions of networks. Following Zygmunt Bauman’s brilliant analysis of culture in terms of liquid and solid modernity, he uses the term liquid church to describe the essence of what a truly networked church would look like; a church responsive to that increasing fluid dimension of our culture which Bauman called liquid modernity. He contrasts liquid church with what he calls ‘solid church.’ To simplify this, solid church is roughly equivalent to what I have here described as institutional church. Because of the continuing existence of solid modernity he does not counsel the total abandonment of solid church, but he does suggest that it is one of decreasing effectiveness. Solid church is related to solid modernity. And solid church has generally mutated from its original basis into becoming communities of heritage (that embody the inherited tradition), communities of refuge (a safe place from the world,) and communities of nostalgia (live in past successes). He suggests that almost all manifestations of solid church fall into one or more of these categories.
He says that “the mutation of solid church into heritage, refuge, and nostalgic communities has seriously decreased its ability to engage in genuine mission in liquid modernity.” This is so because the church finds itself increasingly stranded from its surrounding culture. He remarks that this has seriously damaged the gospel genetic code of the church because the church cannot truly be and become itself in such a condition. Solid church has mutated the gospel code because it has by and large ignored cultural change and found itself changed in ways that are less than planned or perfect. In catering to the religious needs of some (largely the insiders) it has as a consequence failed to respond to the wider spiritual hunger of not-yet-Christians. What is more, “the mutant genetic code within these kinds of churches means that they are a poor starting point for a new kind of church that connects with the flow of spiritual hunger evident in our societies.” This highlights the need to engage liquid modernity with a liquid form of church. Liquid church is essential because it takes the present culture seriously and seeks to express the fullness of the Christian gospel within that culture. The defining element of this is church as a living, adaptive, network highly responsive to the deep spiritual needs and hunger expressed in surrounding society.
Make no mistake; liquid church as Ward defines it is theologically much closer to the conception of ‘church’ advocated in the New Testament teachings. Not only because it is missional and responsive to the surrounding context, not only because it is structurally more consistent with biblical ecclesiology, and because it takes the twin doctrines of what it means to be “in Christ“ and the ‘body of Christ “ with utmost seriousness and reworks them in light of the missional situation. It is clear that the church in Corinth was distinctly different in structure and ethos than the church in Jerusalem and yet they were both legitimate expression expressions of the Body of Christ. There is little by way of uniformity of structure in the NT church.
The reality of the church is to be found only “in Christ”. “Christ is our origin and our truth. To be a Christian is to be joined to Christ and to be joined to Christ is to be joined to his church.” This is what constitutes the body of Christ. It is this primal connection with Jesus that defines what it means to be a Christian and to be in his church. How this expresses itself will depend largely on missional context. In a liquid culture, Ward says we need a liquid form of church that can express truly what it means to be “in Christ.”
He comments….“To be joined to Christ is to be joined to the body of Christ. This corporate and corporeal expression of Christ is fundamental to any theology of the church. The idea of the body of Christ goes very deep into people’s minds. Yet it is worth reflecting on how we express this truth, for to say that the body of Christ is the church is not the same as saying that the church is the body of Christ. The implication of my reading of Paul’s theology is that we should place significantly more emphasis upon the way our connection to Christ makes us part of the body, rather than the other way around.”
Our problem it seems is that we too quickly identify the concrete-historical expressions of church as the body of Christ. And while there is a truth to this, for the church is the body of Christ, perhaps the greater truth is that the body of Christ is the church. When we say that the church is the body of Christ, it claims a certain authority for a particular expression of church. To say that the body of Christ is the church is to open up possibilities as to how it might express itself. This doesn’t just localize it to one particular expression of church. The body can express itself in many different ways and forms. The distinction is paradigmatic. To restate it in these terms enables us to escape the monopolizing grip that the institutional image of church holds over our theological imaginations and allows us to undertake a journey of re-imagining what it means to be God’s people in our own day and in our own situations..
So how can liquid church express itself? Ward points out that all liquids are characterized by flow. In contrast, solids are located and firm. Shape or solidity, to use Bauman again, is the equivalent of “fixing space” and “binding time” and therefore there is no need for change or movement. However, if we are to envisage a liquid church, then like liquids themselves, movement and change must be part of its basic characteristic. “We need to let go of a static model of church that is based primarily on congregation, programs, and buildings. In its place we need to develop a notion of Christian community, worship, mission, and organization which, like the NT ecclesia, is more flexible, adaptive, and responsive to change.” Rather than the later centralist and more ‘solid’ hierarchical structure of the later church, when we look at the structures of the NT church we can observe the more fluid network.
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
Hi Alan
I have just finished reading your book for the third time and will soon start a Missio Dei group for missional leaders and Forgotten ways will be part of it.
Just a few challenging thoughts on liquid vs solid
I visited the china house church movement in 2006 and spoke to a few leaders and read the stuff they teach and write about. I had awesome expierences meeting with 17 year old pastors or girls leading small groups. This is fascinating.
But in some cases the teachings going on is close to that of typical cults in the East, which China and Japan has seen coming and going. Some of the teachings is such a division between world and spiritual that it can hardly be called missional incarnational as well, or in some cases the teaching on prophecy is so one sided and loaded with pop futurism and conspiracy theories that it is hard to distinguish it from Tim Le hayes’ Great Escapes.
Reading Manuell Castell’s works on the network society, it becomes clear that the network society could be anything to anyone. Don’t you think the need for solid teaching is an absolute? should we disregard the teaching of the traditional church and how could it find root in a network society?
This raises the need to Apotolic Environment Gerhard. The ministry of the church is maintained by havig a full orbed ministry. Networks by themselves, unguided, can serve either good or evil. Observe al quaeda.
I appreciate the nuance here which sometimes drops out of the emerging (and the established) church conversation… that some people are more “modern” in outlook than post-modern, and are quite open to somewhat more traditional expressions of faith community provided these are more or less healthy… I’m working with a “seeker” group at the moment to whom our faith community is a point of appeal… an extended, multi-age supportive community.
As noted though… there a sub-groups who do not connect well with traditional expressions of church, and we need to put on a “missionary hat” to consider appropriate expressions of discipleship and faith community for the diverse subcultures that exist in the West.
Another hot topic, thanx, Alan. What strikes me is the importance of the “primal connection with Jesus” defining the essence of being church and the relationship this has with your recommendation of the fullness of APEST (plus more?). The connection of these two factors seems to address Gerhard’s concern with the quality of teaching in the Chinese house church context. As I see it, connection with Christ through both living in Christ whilst learning about Christ also connects us with the other persons of our Trinitarian God. I have read some stuff about liquid church and think it’s a very helpful image to understand the Constantinian erroneous zone in which so many of the Western church folks seem to live compared with the authentic evolutionary diversity seen in the NT accounts of the early church and contemporary contexts where the church is growing exponentially. The other day I laughed when I was doing some FACEBOOK communications and my daughter jokingly talked about using the technological tools available to us as “powers for good and not for evil”. Networking powers, like any other powers, can be used for benevolent or malevolent purposes. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the Chinese house church movement is evil… not by any stretch of the imagination. I have personally met people such as Brother Yun (of The Heavenly Man book fame). What I am acknowledging is the incredible expansion of the population of believers and the amazing miracles that have happened in that context through cultural missional contextualisation, which has brought people to faith and sustained them through situations many of us can barely imagine. I am also acknowledging John Stott’s call for depth as well as breadth in the body of Christ, and I trust this will come as more full orbed ministry is released into the Chinese and other growth situations.
The reference to “flow” in relation to liquid brought to mind other factors that need to flow in a healthy ekklo-system: air flow (breath/spirit - not knowing where it comes from or where it’s going, but seeing what it’s effecting); energy flow (dunamis power of the spirit not just the form); nutrient flow (hearing/obeying/doing God’s will being like food).
Thanx for mentioning the word, discipleship, Janet. Again, that confirms that the connection with Christ is such a quintessentially important factor in ekklesial mission. In the ethnic missional opportunity that has opened up for me, I have heard it said on several occasions that “our people know who Jesus is, they just don’t relate to the hypocrisy of the Church”!!! Unfortunately, I have had to witness some of the worst examples of “solid church” practice abounding in this sorry context, and agree with the validity in such criticism. I hope” me and my missional mates “can continue to be empowered by God to release the springs of living waters for them!
Couple of weeks late. But quick question:
Do you think the multi-site phenomenon can (in some expressions) provide the liquid / networked kind of organization you are talking about? Or does the (usually) photocopied replication prevent any liquidity?
I’ll have a stab at this one (others might want to add commments). I think this probably depends on the “start up” DNA of the planting community Scott.
I know of some churches that set up something close to a “franchise” of the parent church… they even retain centralised control (ie members of the satellite ARE members of the parent congregation) Often there’s a “temple imagination” in these kinds of churches… getting the plants to own their own building and conduct a particular style of worship service is seen as important.
Other churches plant churches with a similar mindset to the parent church, but hand over leadership control and allow the set up of a new constitution, mission statement, separate legal identity etc… it may look a bit like a franchise but is set free to do localised adaptation.
Other churches are planted by parent churches who take incarnational mission seriously. Alan’s church South was involved in a few church plants, including a Messianic congregation… which looks and behaves completely differently to the “parent” church, as it is a predominantly Jewish community culturally.
I’d like to see churches embrace the mindset of seeding some “housechurch” expressions of mission that are released and set free to multiply, which Alan argues in TFW has the greatest potential to keep culturally evolving and exponentially growing… but I don’t see this level of missional imagination in the DNA of many “planting” churches. This is probably the most radical expression of liquidity.