liquid reflections
I have enjoyed reading some of the reflections on liquid on some of the blogs around the place (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here (see follow up as well)).
One of the comments I particularly enjoyed was this post from Travbox:
ART!: Now i’m not against the concept of Art, it has it’s place (a very long way from me). I’m not into Art. And this is not anyone’s fault and i don’t think it’s something that can be corrected. I like a lot of the principles of the emerging church. A lot of people in the emerging church movement are into art. Which is good, We need to reach a group of people that by in large the church is disinterested in. I guess a lot of examples of emerging church reflect art very strongly. Im a sport person!!! I want to see what the emerging church looks like in a sport context, a pub context, a club context, maybe a computer context, but not really art. Now that 90% of you who’ll read this will be into art i’m not against you or what your doing. I’m just saying i don’t like Art thats all…..in fact that’s not even true there are some art forms i like (maybe i’ll have to blog about which art forms i actually do like) I don’t like blogging much either. You may have noticed.
This was only one aspect of his reflection, but I thought it was great. That liquid could prompt these sorts of conversations is really cool. And I think that the great thing about a post like Trav’s (or for that matter some of the thinking from Digger and others) is that liquid is not about creating a program or a pattern. If half a dozen people come out of a conference like liquid and say “I like the theory, but I would like to do that but without the art” then I think that the conversation has been enhanced. If people come out of an experience like liquid and begin to think about how they would critique the expressions they have shared, I think that is positive, provided that it leads to action and mission.
If someone came out and said that they hated the whole of taste of liquid and decided that they would go and start their own form of engagement, I might think that it was a little harsh and misguided, but I would applaud the outcome.
I think it is really positive to begin to create a network of people that disagree with each other. Or more precisely a group of people who agree with each other that there is a call for creativity and innovative mission, but might have different ways of tapping into that. I think that one of the great advantages of being involved in creative missional church movements is the flexibility that it offers. In our situation, I am passionate about the idea of multiple expressions of mission becoming one church (in the sense of a local denominational church organisation). However, this may be the start of a broader expression of that - a network of multiple expressions of mission becoming one church (in the broader sense of THE CHURCH).
I think that there are some changes in some expectations which are needed as we try and create this sort of network. The posts above and comments have mapped out some differences in expectations of what a “conference” will be and how that will operate with a tension between the talking head/expert model and a model which allows for more interaction and conversation. I also believe that we sometimes expect a “moral to the story” - that people will come out with a consensus and shared understanding of what it is we are on about. This is not only unrealistic, but it goes against the whole idea of liquid. We are not about drawing consensus conclusions or about replicating our own experiences.
Instead we need to continue in a space of dialogue. At our church, we have the good fortune to be a part of a broader organisation. One of the reasons that we started this blog was to connect with people who could inform our thinking about the stuff we were grappling with. This is not because we are lost or confused or stupid, but because other people have gained wisdom and insight that we want to take advantage of. Listening to the stories of different communities the other night, there seems to be a lot of this. A lot of people are starting from scratch and figuring it out as they go along and dealing with many of the same issues and concerns. They might come up with different solutions, but it strikes me that we are doing a bad job of pooling our resources and helping each other to discern the presence and direction of the spirit of god amongst us.
We have been talking with LT about Resonate and I am wondering how an effective grassroots continuing emerging conversation/dialogue would look. We can accomplish some of this through blog conversations, but there are many people who aren’t involved in those dialogues who have important things to offer. So what would a network or a dialogue look like? How would it work? Would it be helpful for people who are looking at these types of ideas? How can we offer resources to each other?