Categories: uncategorized
Date: 07 September 2003 21:46:29
i had this thought this morning when flicking through the medium-depressing (because ludicrously well observed) foreword of bauman's latest offering, 'liquid love: on the frailty of human bonds', if we're into full titles.
pete ward took bauman's concept of liquid modernity (which i have read, but a while ago) and transposed the concept to liquid church (which i haven't read, but own) (the book, not a liquid church. various comments and distractions arising from that thought! anyway...). when i heard pete ward talking about this at greenbelt a couple of years ago i was inspired.
Now my thoughts are - fragile bonds are not great for us, not really; they're good good good to have peripherally (ie, acquaintances, social networks, virtual ones etc) but bad if they are the core of what someone has. so then if liquid love is the logical result of liquid modernity, is liquid church just like another excuse to avoid committments, and at the end of the day, is that going to be too much freedom and not enough security? i think we need to hold these things in balance in faith communities, that's been my thing for ages - too much freedom and you have insecurity, too much security and you are kind of in jail and getting out is ludicrously costly (cults are the extreme example).
networks are great but bonds are essential. actually commitment is liberating. hmmm i was inspired though by the liquid church thing, i remember thinking that is what we DO actually, and we do that because it reflects who we are. but today i'm thinking, maybe that's not the thing to aspire to. better read the books and have a think.
(oh, and... the security/freedom conundrum wasn't properly explained but i can't think how to say it all now).