It is with the relationship of churches to culture that sociological analysis strays into the theological. is, and the stark contrasts in the fresh expressions debate concerning the nature of social structure, consumerism, ecclesiology and missiology, suggest an appropriate framework for theological critique. At times, the theoretical debate about the necessity for fresh expressions produces antithetical arguments of almost pure or ideal type. For Ward, only liquid church has the adaptability and exibility to respond adequately to the challenges and opportunities of communicating the unchanging Gospel in a liquid, postmodern, consumer, network society. For Mobsby, only the emerging/emergent church is able to slough o the damaging inheritance of Christendom and shape itself to respond to the postmodern sensibilities of contemporary culture by developing a synthetic, contextual theology. Both accept the value of a ‘mixed economy’ in recognition of the complexities of social and ecclesial change, but it is an interim measure; new social developments need a new ecclesiology and missiology. Set against this is Davison and Milbank’s idealized church of Radical Orthodoxy: the carrier, protector and generator of Christian culture; stable, dependable, complex and rich; the mediator of historic Christian truth in concrete practices; the counter-culture through which transformation of both individuals and society can take place. ey accept that there is a place for fresh expressions, but only as mission initiatives of the parish church. e theoretical contributions of other commentators lie somewhere in the dialectic tension between the two, as does the social and ecclesial reality of particular faith communities.