Liquid Church

I am not sure how many of you have read, or are planning to read Liquid Church, by Pete Ward, but I finished it a while back and have been meaning to post something about it. I hope that we could have some conversation regarding the book!

First of all, I found the book pretty enjoyable to read, outside of the fact that I got really tired of the "liquid" analogy. I think Ward offers some good points as to how we can possibly revise the way church is "done", but wonder at some level if what he is suggesting limits the power of the calling Christ.

Ward makes two claims that are very bold and I think correct to some extent. He writes on page 75, "We move from liquid church as an imaginary comcept to liquid church as a reality by working with two simple assertions: 1. Everyone has a spiritual desire. 2. Church should be designed around people's desire for God." I would agree that at some level, everyone does indeed have a spiritual desire, or at the very least a spiritual incling. And I also would agree that church to some extent should be designed to meet people's desire. Yet, much of what I read in Ward I think overplays the idea of us living in a consumer society. I fear that by trying to change what church is to the point of almost losing a central worship experience, in order to better market church, is very detrimental to what we should be about as church. Ward suggests many times that church should take the form of small groups gathering rather than a central worship experience that is "central." I see teh value in small groups, but wonder what is lost if we abandon everything that we have done? Perhaps I am reading this too harshly- that could be the case!

With the above being stated, I should add that I do think that we, as a church, indeed need to look for ways to be "liquid". I thnk the points made in the book regarding being open to change, and adapting to the church are crucial if we desire to reach the culture of the postmoern world. Yet, I am not sure if I agree with the proposed strategy of Ward. Thoughts, comments, conversations.....

not sure what to make of it all

two weeks ago i went to a wedding of a good friend outside of a large east coast city. this friend, his parents and his (now) wife are all avowed atheists. they aren't just unchurched, they really have moved past the whole idea of god and do not believe. they are good friends, but i have the feeling that while they respect the works of charity the church does etc... they probably really just don't get what it is i and so many others see in all this faith stuff.

however, her parents, although lapsed church goers, have not moved that far and so they insisted that the wedding be held in the baptist church where she had gone to preschool and where they are nominally members i believe. her dad had recently recovered from a very serious illness, so i believe he was having a renewed interest in this "god stuff."

so, having set the stage here is what happened. we arrived at the wedding with 3 other couples(all the guys were my college roommates, 2 catholics and one non-practicing protestant) and sat in the pews with a fairly diverse group of individuals(i can only imagine the number of faiths and non-faiths expressed in those 125 folks) who had come for this wedding.

everything coming out of the mouth of the pastor was as christian as you can get, totally god and christ-centered. he even tried to preach a meaningful sermon. we prayed the lord's prayer, recieved a trinitarian benediction. all prayers and words that have deep meaning for christians and the influence of her folks was obvious.

but the readings, the parts picked by the couple, were readings from selecular sources such as a short story from a literary magizine, a reading from the velvetine rabbit and from the prophet(by kahlil gibran). you could tell by the choices of all three readings that they held deep meaning for the couple as well. but for me, they were nice words yet lacking the depth of faith.

the thing was, the service was meaningful. but it was meaningful in a way that missed something for me. it was "spiritual" but it wasn't faithful?(i am not sure if that is the right word)

the point of me writing this is that as i was sitting there, i wondered what i would have done as the pastor that day. the couple live in another city, he probably won't have contact with them again in their lives. so the opportunity to walk with this couple in their lives and witness to them will not be there. basically it was a one shot deal of cultural christianity mixed with the reality of unfaith.

so what do we do when we are asked to do a wedding like this? we certainly can refuse, but make no mistake they will get married by someone. would love to hear some reflections here on this reality because i am certain we will all be faced with this situation again and again in ministry. thanks for the comments and reflections.

Pentecostal

I worshipped yesterday at the Faith Chapel United Pentecostal Church in Copse, Jamaica. The service was about 1 & 1/2 hours long. Much music filled the service at just about any and all places. Prayers would break into song, the missionary presentation morphed into song, and the testimonials all had songs as part of them. People standing, dancing, clapping, and raising their hands were the norm for the service. The sanctuary was packed and the Spirit was definitey moving in and among those assembed.

Pastor Douglas' sermon was intense and included songs and an altar call - different than what we would think of. The altar call was an opportunity for those who needed prayer to come to the altar for prayer with a deacon or the pastor. While this was going on the cogregation was in song. Drums and keyboard were the instruments of choice. More to be posted later.

Interesting Article

well i am beginning to feel that i am the blogging dork in this group. hope you guys are reading the blog regularly at least, would love to hear some of your feedback on the posts or some feedback on your experiences out and about in worship and conversation.

interesting article in the ny times today about genetics and race theory. really calls into question many of the things i was taught were "facts" in my school days. is this part of the postmodern movement as well? to reexamine many of the constructs of 30-40 years ago, of objective science, fact/value split?(for example in this case the fact was that all humans are essentially alike and that any decision to break us out by race differences were socially constructed values) these aren't new ideas for sure, but they are controversial. not unlike living with multiple atonement theories.

so how do we deal with this without it become complete reletivism? for example, and to relate it to our class. in worship, can we claim that there are better ways to do worship in a postmodern environment? or is it totally contextual? any thoughts from your readings?

New CD

i just recieved via the mail church of the apostles first full length cd, ordo, and think it is great. (a disclaimer: having worked in ministry near these folks and worshipped with them and hung out with them i have a vested interest in these folks)

that said, i think this music and the apostles as a whole are a great example of emerging church, this is a great cd that besides having good music really shows how emerging music is a bit different than the music i have heard in many "contemporary" services.(they have even redone such "old" hymns as let all mortal flesh keep silence and a mighty fortress and their versions are good)

to complete this as an advertisement, you can get it on their website via paypal.($15 for the cd, $17 with shipping) you can even hear a couple tracks if you want to try it out.

the cd itself has the shape of the ordo to it. sometime i really appreciate about cota is the way they work in the ancient shape of worship with newer music and rites, yet keeping the sacredness and good parts of our tradition.

oh yeah, just so we are clear, cota is church of the apostles in seattle, the link is on your right.

Test

Just want to be sure I've finally figured this thing out!

Multiple Jesuses

just got done reading brian mclaren's chapter "the seven jesuses i have known" in a generous orthodoxy. what a great way of condensing and summarizing several of the various atonement theories(what i would call his use of focus/problem and good news) while also admitting there are many more to come.

the thing is, like mclaren i totally find myself appreciating each of them at certain times, or seeing how i used and made sense of things through these at different times in my life.

i think this is one of bigger issues to face as a "post-modern." is it syncretism/heresy to admit that maybe there isn't just one way of understanding jesus and his work? from many of my profs here at luther, and many other lutheran voices throughout history who have run around accusing each other of heterodoxy, it would seem that it is. he says, on p.66, that it isn't about "liquifying" it into a porrage, but then again, can we live with diversity of opinion?(see leland's post)

Are differences only skin deep?

I have been thinking about the comment Karis posted and what caught my eye was what she said about liking people that are similar to us. I have worshipped at El Milagro a number of times, and if you haven't been to the latino service for a baptism you haven't truly experienced the Todos Los Santos community. El Milagro is struggling with what it means to be bi-cultural, but is not the only congregation in the City South Cluster to be experiencing merging pains. A little over a decade ago Minnehaha Lutheran Church and Holy Communion Lutheran Church merged to become Minnehaha Communion Lutheran Church. Both of these congregations were of Scandanivian heritage. What I found most interesting in speaking with the former pastor was the difficulty these two peoples had in coming together. He said for the first 4 or 5 years one side of the aisle were people from Minnehaha and the other side Holy Communion. New people, when they showed up weren't quite sure where they could sit. He said it was around year 9 or 10 after the merger that the idea of 'us' and 'them' had begun to leave the vocabulary of the members and they actually began thinking of themselves as members of Minnehaha Communion.

That said, I wonder how long it will take people who have vastly different ethnic heritages to come together at El Milagro - or for that matter any multi-lingual congregation. Perhaps the departure of the Bronx-boy Tony will create a situation where the two sides of the aisle as it were would come together faster than Minnehaha Communion' s congregation. On the other hand there may not be any movement toward commonality until a new leader emerges - lay or ordained.

Postmodern experience?

i had two church experiences this weekend that when combined I consider to be postmodern simply because they were so different. thought i would share.

neither worship was in and of itself postmodern in the emerging church sense of the term, but the experience of both of them in one day was certainly a mind job.(to use cipher's term)

the morning i went to a mission start south of the cities that is growing very fast. i went there because i am doing another independent study focusing on media and technology in preaching and worship with dr. rogness. so i went here because this was one of the churches he had contacts with who are "technology heavy."

the service actually turned out to be very technology lite this sunday, but it was unlike anything i had seen in a self-professed lutheran congregation before. basically it was a praise service like those i have experienced back in texas at evangelical free or baptist congregations. it started with announcements, we greeted one another, there was a 3 song praise set, a prayer and then a 40 minute sermon. the service then ended with another song as people gathered for prayer around the cross, which when the pastor finished praying we were dismissed rather informally(definantly no "go in peace, serve the lord"). the sermon was pretty good for a 40 minuter and focused clearly on their sermon series. that we are in the season of lent was not mentioned at all.

although i was less impressed with what i considered to be performance music(people clapped for the musicians at the end of the songs), in which most of the people(especially the men) were hardly singing at all. what impressed me most was that i was welcomed immediately by a member of the congregation(a fairly impressive thing in a worshiping congregation of about 200) and when she found out i had never been there before, immediately invited me to sit with her and her husband. while she was friendly, and encouraged me to return, she was not pushy.

the second service was at a large and growing established congregation in the cities that prides itself on liturgical worship and is trying, through a sunday evening service, to appeal to a younger "gen x" set. (i have an ongoing relationship with this congregation, which is also very welcoming, so it wasn't my first time there)

basically though, while trying to be more postmodern, they haven't quite gotten there yet.(although their emphasis on liturgy resembles the emerging churches i have seen much more than the praise service did) the evening service is, with some variations, a replica of the morning liturgy although during lent they are using a marty haugen liturgy that is very good. while that is nice, the unfortunante result is that we spend a lot of time shuffling between that liturgy book, a bulletin and the occasional hymnal. certainly not very welcoming to the uninitiated. (an experience made very clear to me recently while attending with an unchurched friend)

while it has its drawbacks, the benefit for me is that here the people have a large role in the service, respond to the readings and prayers, sing the hymns and liturgy boldly, and we shared the lord's supper.

so what do i make of all this? i don't know except that only in a world as diverse as ours has become could too thriving lutheran parishes have such radically different styles of worship. is one ontologically better than the other? i really don't think so. but i do think there are things that each parish does better than the other. perhaps it is the role of "postmodern" church leaders to learn from these two very different experiences(and i am sure you could all relate to what i am talking about with experiences of your own) and take the best of what each had to offer. is that too naive? i will be interested to here any responses.