What I would have liked to have seen, however, was a reference to key thinker Zygmunt Bauman in this area. It is something with which we will all have to contend: what Bauman calls liquidity as one of the central aspects of modern life–KSH.
What I would have liked to have seen, however, was a reference to key thinker Zygmunt Bauman in this area. It is something with which we will all have to contend: what Bauman calls liquidity as one of the central aspects of modern life–KSH.
I am a huge fan of Zygmunt Bauman. In fact, Pete Ward at King’s College drew on Bauman a great deal in his book LIQUID CHURCH, the central thesis of which is a contrast between what he describes as “solid church” forms and “liquid church.” Ward notes that modernity has produced institutional expressions of church that tend to be more solid and rigid. Ward also describes various mutations of solid church that he describes as heritage site, refuge, and nostalgic community.
In contrast with solid church Ward notes that within modernity we are also observing cultural changes that evidence increasing fluidity. As Ward quotes Leonard Sweet on cultural change while drawing upon the metaphor of liquid:
“If the Modern Era was a rage for order, regulation, stability, singularity, and fixity, the Postmodern Era is a rage for chaos, uncertainty, otherness, openness, multiplicity, and change. Postmodern surfaces are not landscapes but wavescapes, with the waters always changing and the surfaces never the same. The sea knows no boundaries.”
The shift of culture from modernity to postmodernity, from what Ward describes as solid culture to liquid culture, necessitates new expressions and understandings of church from solid church to liquid church. But while such talk often makes more traditional church leaders uncomfortable with the fear of abandonment of all of the past, Ward strikes a balance here. He states:
“I do not argue that we should abandon all existing patterns of church in favor of this new idea or proclaim that all is ‘post’ and that this heralds an impending apocalypse that will sweep solid church before it.”
Instead of sweeping dismissal of solid church forms in modernity, Ward offers two suggestions. First, that mutations of solid church “has seriously decreased its ability to engage in genuine mission in liquid modernity.” Second, that fluid expressions of church are essential in that they take “the present culture seriously and seeks to express the fullness of the Christian gospel within that culture.”
Santilli writes, “In contrast, postmodern culture resists a universal rational order and is skeptical about the possibilities for secure metaphysical groundings of moral choices.”
Do post-moderns really resist THIS, or do they resist the attempted imposition of a single solution?
My impression, and it is only impression from my dealings with post-moderns, is that they are not adverse to universals per se (despite the call for no meta-narrative), but certainly are resistant to any one or group attempting to impose an “orthodoxy” upon them without question or quandary. They bristle at being told to believe this or that by others who they feel have not done the hard work of questioning and wrestling honestly with the issues at hand from a variety of perspectives.
Some popular strategies for church growth and maintenance ignore the sociological realities we must all deal with.
[blockquote]Considering that a church’s programs and services are mostly focused on married couples with children — also noted in the book — then isn’t there a large percentage of the population that does not have the support of religious institutions?[/blockquote]
A parish I used to belong to placed in its mission statement that it was “a family-oriented community devoted to the Christian formation of its children.” There was an unspoken but general assumption that children would live with their parents until ready to form a household with a spouse and children of their own, and that there were too few exceptions to count.
In fact, married couples with children constituted maybe 30% of the membership. That reflected the composition of the surrounding community, which was largely divided between single adults and retired couples. The mission statement told those people that they would be second-class members if they joined. So most of them didn’t. At the same time, families that visited saw the actual composition of the congregation and didn’t join either. Attendance grew by 10% while the community’s population grew by 200%.
Just another thought: Anyone who teaches can probably say that too many of us are not very willing to put in the time and hard effort to really learn something. We would rather simply be told, and then end it (and perhaps forget it). I wonder how much this plays into our current troubles.
When I was finishing my master’s degree in college student development, we were studying human development theories. One of the theories was Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. One stage was basically defined as “dualistic thinking” – black/white, right/wrong, a way of thinking that categorized everything easily and simply. People in this stage knew, definitely and unquestioningly, what was good and right and what was not. Studies can show that too many people remain in this stage without moving on. Kohlberg might say that they have not truly developed an honest and mature morality.
Now, someone could work their way through the remaining stages and come to the end point holding a moral position (conclusion) that is the same as when they were in the dualistic stage, but they did the hard work necessary to come to the conclusion honestly.
I wonder if too many of us find it easier to stop at the dualistic stage (liberal and conservative). We find an answer that we like, and stop. Then, we are determined to defend it against opposition or contrary information. We sometimes fear the outcome of questioning. Then, we are determined to demand that all others abide by our and our group’s “orthodox” definitions. Before becoming an Anglican, when I was a good American-Evangelical, if found too many of us as Christians in this position. It’s just easier.
I think, perhaps, that within post-modern ways of thinking that there is a resistance to being stuck in a stage, if you will. There is a willingness to look at things from all different perspectives before drawing conclusions and a resistance to those who say, “this is how it is and there is no need to rethink or question it. You, therefore, must accept it.” That makes me feel better about myself and my beliefs.
It takes time to work through stages. It takes time to learn. In the process we at times think wrongly and act wrongly, but we cannot bring up short the process of learning. As a teacher, this is clear, but it seems when we look at religion or faith we are less likely to give the process it’s due. We would rather the immediacy of imposition than allow people the time necessary to question, to be wrong, to wonder, to be in the midst of quandary, to wrestle, and to conclude – to do the honest work.
Just some thoughts.
Bob G+, your closing quote was very moving:
We would rather the immediacy of imposition than allow people the time necessary to question, to be wrong, to wonder, to be in the midst of quandary, to wrestle, and to conclude – to do the honest work.
Amen !
Y’all do the intelligent stuff. Thanks to the title of this piece, I’m going to have [i]Invasion of the Gabber Robots[/i] floating through my head for the next few weeks…
[blockquote]
CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
All your base are belong to us.
You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
CATS:You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha [/tiny][/blockquote]
Some have compared the Gen-X and younger generations as a missionary culture to which the church should send those who can speak the language!
The only problem with ministering within that culture in that culture’s language and epistemology is that the hardened conviction that there can be no universal absolutes ( eg. “there is only one God…who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit”; “God’s Will can be known, and is not self-contradicting”; “Human beings can know the revelation that God has given, and can live by the Light of that revelation…and it is the same God and revelation to every one”)
make it highly unlikely that the missioners (who, we would hope, believe in the Truth and the absolutes) will every find a dialect that can reach the “mission field”.
So: the younger generations have a devout conviction that there is nothing that can prove itself to be universal True. How does one bear witness to and lead to conversion from such a “religious” conviction?
Stuart – Perhaps, and yes, but… What an opportunity we have to demonstrate life in Christ, not just talk about it. It demands of us, however, that we actually know how to live it. It is more James than Paul. It demands an end to hypocrisy and inauthentic and deficient Christian lives. None of us are there yet…
Whether we like it or not, this is the cultural condition in which we find ourselves. God is able to work His way through our cultural stain. We may continue to demand acceptance of former presuppositions of understanding, accepting, or dealing with God, His Truth, and culture, but I don’t think we will get very far.
We bear witness, we love, we wrestle with them in authentic ways and watch as God does His work. Ultimately, it is up to the individual and God. Some will be moved, others will not. I believe this is the example of Jesus.
I agree with Stuart. There are some seriously anti-Christian assumptions at work in post-modern thought… It is obvious that the church still needs to reach out to people and speak a language they can understand, and so I agree with Bob G’s point about “witness through example”. But, in the end, I think Stuart’s point is: “what is our witness?” Some years ago, a priest in Memphis made the statement in our clericus group that we are in a time where orthodoxy doesn’t matter, but orthopraxis does… I know that many of the brothers and sisters nodded in agreement. It was at that point that I asked this question: “If we don’t know what the right thing is, how can we do it?” His answer was “you just do” (Needless to say I thought that to be an insufficient answer)Orthopraxis (living witness) is always and only the fruit of orthodoxy (truth). I am not convinced that post-moderns are not simply neo-pagans. When I read the Church Fathers it sounds like the ancient Roman/Greek world was similar to our own.
What are we calling this generation to? and what do we call it from? What can be carried into a life as a Christian from this culture and what must be left behind? Hard questions indeed. God lead us in this!
Imagine if .1% of the energy that has been invested over the past 30 years – from prayer book wars to ordination of women to glbti – imagine if .1% of that energy had gone into what Pete Ward calls fluid expressions of church, which are essential in that they take “the present culture seriously and seeks to express the fullness of the Christian gospel within that culture.â€
That is why I gain so much hope from the Fresh Expressions effort (http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk), part of Archbishop Rowan Williams’ vision to create a ‘mixed economy church’ of traditional congregations alongside new expressions of church life. It already numbers 300 new congregations with 20,000 members. Fresh Expressions’ aim is to create around 10,000 new worshipping communities across the UK within the next decade, by resourcing innovative mission through new expressions of church life.
While the old Christendom, attractional church in England is pretty much over, these efforts witness to new vitality, to fresh expressions of kingdom life that have much to offer us here in North America. Sadly mainline denoms like ECUSA & reforming entities like IRD will likely continue to buy into the left/right, Scripture/culture frame – ignoring the powerful call that exists right in front of our eyes.
Kendall, thanks for the Bauman link.
All my souls are belong to you?
Only one soul does Wilfred have he thinks. Not smart enough to comprehend, neither syntax strange nor ideas stranger Wilfred is.
Time now for liquidity in glass to pour; perhaps three shots later it more sense will make.
Bob C. (#5) – Sometimes, I surprise myself! 🙂
For non-techies who don’t get the “all your base are belong to us” allusion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us.
D.C.,
Thank you for expranation.
T19, ah so educational.