Later in our journey, we discover a pattern of transition from solid to liquid. But first we’ll define what we mean by the word “solid.”
Solid is a generalized term for a framework of thinking where the church doesn’t exist for you, but you exist for it. It’s where you must conform, leave or be crushed under its weight. This stands in contrast to the term liquid, where what we know as the church is malleable, by design, to serve the goal of personal and social spiritual transformation. A paradigm shift occurs when you can be a part of a community that is both for you and shaped by you.
Even at it’s best, the most it can be is a charade.
Talking about a real (or contrived) moment in front of a large group of people is miles away from experiencing the realness in a moment with other people.
Despite the best intentions of our previous church experiences, there were severe limitations and obstacles that kept us from achieving the goals we sincerely professed to believe. The Sunday service model where one person actively teaches and everyone else passively listens, could not be anything more than a show — a window into a “Christian lifestyle” we artificiality represented to make it seem desirable to the outsiders (i.e. whoever was in the church audience).
To be clear, it wasn’t artificial because it was fake or hypocritical as much as it just wasn’t in the context of actual life. It could only be a representation of it. Just like social media feeds, when life is a representation, it faces the pressure of making it the best representation. We iron out all the wrinkles and bleach out the dark spots. Authenticity fades behind the growing compulsion to influence the viewpoint of others.
This subtle but pervasive pressure to manage appearances blinded us from deeply knowing one another and being honest with ourselves.
As leaders, this solid church model drastically restricted our capacity for relational honesty. Most of our relationships had a shallow veneer of real connection but really only came in one of two forms, either placating and avoidance or “accountability” and judgment. Always at a distance, our role in leadership made relationships exclusively one directional. Any real transparency or vulnerability was a liability.
Here’s what this looked like: we could share about our struggles, but only struggles of the past that have already been overcome. But if any honesty was dared in the moment, it would be minimized or brushed off to a back corner where the problem would fester until it would actively be snuffed out. It couldn’t be allowed to surface because it would reveal a flaw in the system. It would reveal the “experts of faith” didn’t have all the answers to keep everyone else believing what we are doing is working.
If real working power from God is sometimes called the “upside down kingdom,” why do our church models derive power from the standard hierarchical models of the world prevalent throughout history? This is the foundational mistake of our Solid church experience we simply found no way to reconcile. Solid doesn’t live up to the hype it sells.
“Nothing defines religion quite as well as attempting impossible tasks with limited power, all while pretending that it’s working.”
In the Solid model, power is top down heavy. There is no category of reference to comprehend any other form of power. Power from the top keeps order by maintaining a fearful authority of conformity. It subtly or directly reinforces any variant of social norms is a challenge to God himself. The message was clear: if you don’t want to provoke the wrath of God, don’t you dare disturb the status quo.
Some people love wielding top down power. Too many ambitious religious leaders leave trauma and spiritual abuse in their wake. We witnesses this first hand and wanted a different path for ourselves and our families. Fortunately, this isn’t the only kind of power.
Another form of power comes from the bottom up. It doesn’t have any regard for the status quo, which quickly looses relevance and meaning. Power like this is not held exclusively in the hands of a few individuals, pastors or a board of directors. Like Martin Luther translating the Bible into the common language of peasants, this form of power is about giving away its power. It’s decentralized in small pockets throughout a wide number of people as they each surrender to the movement of the Spirit. It invites them into a dance that forms a larger body bigger than any of them. This kind of power is uncontrollable and unpredictable but clearly recognizable as good. Much like character of Aslan from C.S. Lewis, “Of course he isn’t safe! But he’s good.”
The most difficult part was coming to terms with how Solid impacted us.
It was hard because not all of it was bad – it was a mixture of painful and beautiful memories. Some of us had traumatic experiences filled with spiritual abuse. Some of us had mostly positive experiences with only a slight sense something else was missing. For most of us, the people who filled our old churches had good intentions and sincerely wanted to do the right thing. Most are only guilty of not questioning what they were given and accepting it as just the way things are. But we knew enough about how the “beef” was made, we had to start being more honest with ourselves. And there wasn’t any room in Solid for that. Like the song by Pink, we wondered what about us and the people we promised to care for?
Sobriety comes when we can be honest about the totality of our experiences.
Many of us have felt angry, heartbroken, lied to or betrayed. Some of us lived in a season of bitterness for a while. We moved through it at our own pace. But eventually, we all would have to face ourselves – all the hurt, pain, frustration and allow ourselves to grow through it. And then come back and recognize all the good Solid had provided us too. This seems to be the pattern of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction.
This means Solid isn’t bad for all people. Despite all of this critique, Liquid is not anti-Solid. It can do wonderful things in the lives of people who want the structure and stability it provides. In fact, many people of our community have gone back to Solid church experiences (however, they now are in a completely different place, capable of not getting caught up in the charades of Solid). The only unreconcilable conflict of value we have with Solid is when a church congregation wants to grow and develop in new directions but Solid has neither the capacity nor the will to support them.
Faith in a wild-and-unpredictable-but-always-good Spirit will eventually outgrow the contexts of Solid. It will only be able to keep up if it starts letting go of control and following along to the dance of the Spirit too.
We are a group of families striving to live an authentic faith free from artificial social constructs. We do not go to church, rather, we are the church. For 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we struggle with and how to grow in this reality. We are Liquid.