Subscribe to Posts
New Nets: Beyond Bounded Set Fishing
We need some new nets. Something more than contemporary worship music and great programs that meet needs and pastors who wear clothes from Old Navy. It’s time to get missional, which always means controversial. It’s time to examine cultural assumptions that have hindered us from doing our job. This post is the first in a series on one of those assumptions–how we in the Western world approach categories. I learned this from John Wimber in the early Vineyard days. He introduced me to the conversation in mission circles about “bounded set and centered set” groups.
You can read all about it in a real page turner, Antropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, by Paul Hiebert. Hiebert uses a concept for categorizing groups in mathmatetics which has been adapted to sociology and now missions called set theory. It pertains to missions because missionaries are about making disciples. So missionaries have to understand categories: what does it mean to be a Christian for example? The Bibe is full of categories: faithful, unfaithful; children of light, children of darkness, believer, non-believer. But we bring to our reading and application of the Bible our unexamined cultural assumptions, including set theory.
Are you still with me?
Western culture has a tendency to understand categories through the lens of bounded set thinking. Going back to Greek philosophy we view things in terms of their intrinsic nature. An apple is an apple because it partakes of appleness; an orange is likewise an orange, and never the twain shall meet. That’s Plato, baby. This affects the way we think about everything. Our roads are clearly marked and deliniated by curbs. Cars are expected to stay in their lanes. Our musical notes are clearly deliniated: seven notes per scale, with half steps between. Everything else? Off key.
This is the way we do our politics. There are conservatives and liberals. A liberal can’t be pro-life and a conservative can’t support gay marriage (without rocking the boat.)
It’s a bounded set approach to categories. Groups (like churches) have members based on whether or not they are inside the boundaries established by the group. The Amish are a bounded set group as are Roman Catholics, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and, unless you want to rock the boat, virtually every other form of organized Christianity in America.
Such churches define members by clarifying boundaries–usually of belief and behavior, but often by ethnicity as well. Those who hold to the specified beliefs or behaviors are in the group. Those who don’t are not. Clear insiders, clear outsiders.
Bounded set thinking is digital: you’re either on or off, nothing in between. So bonded set groups tend to ignore the middle. They may even be blind to the existence of a middle.
John Wimber came along and violated bounded set thinking by recognizing the neglected middle beweeen Pentecostals and Evangelicals. He said, “We can learn from Pentecostals about the Holy Spirit and healing, and gifts and miracles without having to adopt all the Pentecostal doctrines and customs.” This upset many people, Pentecostal and Evangelical alike. It created intense controversy that wore heavily on Wimber. But he was right and now there are plenty of Evangelicals who embrace Pentecostal power and many Pentecostals who don’t believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be “baptized in the Spirit.”
Do all cultures approach categories like this? No. Hiebert says Hebrew culture, compared to Greek culture doesn’t think in terms of bounded sets. In India, drivers relate differently to lanes and roads and musical notes, because the boundaries are much fuzzier. (Hiebert describes three different set types: bounded, fuzzy, and centered.)
Churches can be more or less bounded set in their thinking. The Amish are more bounded set than the Methodists. Fundamentalists are more bounded set than Evangelicals. The more bounded set you are the more sharply defined the boundaries and the more intense the difference between insiders and outsiders.
But all churches in the United States feel a strong pull toward bounded set thinking. I’m friends with a liberal Episcopalian pastor. Yes, I consider him a brother in Christ. He told me that he had a few Republicans in his church but they don’t wear their colors on their bumpers. I have many evangelical pastor friends who would gladly give you a nickel for every Obama bumper sticker in their parking lots last November.
Bounded set is the air we breathe when it comes to categories. We feel secure when our categories are well defined and the boundaries are clear. Unless, of course, it impinges on us. If we enjoy a glass of wine now and again, and we want to join a Free Methodist Church, it annoys that we have to give up our glass of wine to be a member in good standing. If we are divorced and remarried and haven’t gone through the Catholic anulment process because we actually think that we were married legitimately and now the marriage is over, it bothers us that we can’t receive communion at a Catholic mass. So we tend to move from one bounded set chuch to another, looking for the one we can get into without giving up our glass of wine or our opinion that we were legitimately married and now the marriage is over and we’ve remarried, hoping to do better this time.
We may not realize how bounded set our thinking is until one of our boundaries is crossed.
Bounded set thinking is our default setting. We feel secure when it prevails and insecure when it is violated. We don’t enjoy music with quarter tones; it sound weird. We don’t like driving in places where the lane markers aren’t respected. When a pastor says something that sounds “liberal” we assume said pastor is no longer “conservative” (i.e. one of us.) We focus on the issue, whatever is, and are blind to the possibilty that our response to the issue is touching something even deeper and unexamined: a cultural assumption about categories.
OK, I’ve exhausted you. I know this is hard. But broad is the path that leads to the status quo in the American church these days and many are happy to travel it; and narrow is the path that leads to life for those on the outside looking in and hard to travel for those who take it.
It’s hard to make new nets and just as hard to use them if they are handed to us. We use the ones we’ve got far beyond their expiration date and hang on to them like a toddler’s well worn blanket. Because new nets requires us to examine previously unexamined cultural assumptions.
To be continued….
Tags: bounded set, centered set, cultural assumptions, evangelism, fuzzy set, john wimber, missions, paul hiebert, set theory, Vineyard
September 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Gosh, I think this is so important at the moment. It’s not just church-church boundaries which need to be re-examined, but more importantly the church-not church boundaries. This boundary is scary to dissolve or fuzzify but I think it is one of the requirements of God’s call to our generation to do this. A true revival of God’s presence requires this boundary to be dissolved. In doing so I think we will rediscover the place of the local church in society and the church itself will be strengthened, but in the middle it will feel like the church is breaking apart. I’ve tried to express some of this on my blog (http://davidchurch.blogspot.com) but I’m sure it will be done in a much more coherent and useful fashion here. I can’t wait for the next installment…
September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Ken,
With you partly on what you are trying to say, but one example I think makes my point in the one issue I have with this bounded/centered set idea.
The Indian example of not clearly marked lane dividers and why we don’t like driving in that way. That’s because we ignore these markers at our own peril. People crash that way. I wonder what the per capita auto related death rate in India vs the US.
I think reality lies in knowing which boundaries are God made and which are man made. I think there are maybe fewer of these ’solid’ boundaries than we think, but there is a point at which one has to make a claim.
What makes our church a Christian church? What does having Jesus at the center mean? Do we just like Him? Follow Him? Die for Him?
Can one be a believer in Jesus and Krishna?
I appreciate the opening of the church to a large variety of people, that’s Jesus’ call. But even in Biblical times, in a non western society, there was a call to commit to God and Jesus and that in itself is a clear boundary, your are either committed to Jesus or not.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I’m currently in Korea. Yesterday I did an entire sermon on kingdom culture. I believe kingdom culture transcends our national identities, our political alignments and our church sub-cultures.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I’m with you on the centered-set church thing. A few years ago, before you mentioned it in any of your sermons, I read Who Is My Enemy by… Rich Nathan? I forget. But that book’s description of the centered-set took a burden off my shoulders I didn’t even realize I was carrying. Suddenly I could look at my own spiritually wandering adult children –who were definitely outside the church and over whom I was feeling deep anxiety — and see that they had all turned in a Christward direction and were still in motion. The relief and hope I felt — and the freedom from a falsely inspired burden of evangelistic responsibility — was a life changing revelation. Intercessory prayer for them became less and less fear-based and more and more faith-based. I gained the ability to see how the Spirit was working in their lives, reconciling them to God. Realizing that they were connected to God in real ways didn’t overrule the seriousness of their rejection of Christ, but it took me out of the role of judge and put me into the role of co-laborer. Now that I realize that they are in the middle of a story, I am free to like them again, to be proud of their accomplishments and encouraging about their goals. I am free to be alert to new episodes in their story, responding to the Spirit’s promptings as I play my limited role.
I really get it, and I’m really for it, but I am SO uncomfortable when you define specific denominations as centered-set or bounded-set. There’s just something really wrong there that I’m still trying to figure out. It seems like there’s a blind side specifically toward the Church. If there’s any group that we should apply the centered-set model to, isn’t it our fellow Christ-followers? I am convinced that because Jesus commanded his followers–in all their variety–to be one, he will call us each to task for every way in which we contributed to division. I think he’s offended when we criticize each other. He identifies with the Catholic Church. He identifies with the Amish. They are called by his name and he accepts them exactly where they are, every day (”It’s before their own Master that they stand or fall…”). If the centered-set vision for our church is supposed to function as an exhortation or correction to any other, we must believe our own testimony that it can only do so through our acceptance, respect and demonstrated faith in God’s presence in that other. If that is true in our relations to the non- or pre-believer, how much more in our relations with our fellow believers! If we feel enjoined to reserve to God the final judgment of our fellow human beings, why would we behave or speak as though that reservation doesn’t apply to the Church? And, by the way, I absolutely experience that kind of centered-set regard from Catholics toward Protestant believers. Non-Catholics seem to be way worse at it.
I haven’t fully figured out how to articulate this problem, but I can say with conviction that it is one.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I think Jay Pathak out at the Arvada Vineyard has been one of the most influential people in helping me understand not only the issue in the bounded set approach to Christianity today, but the freedom in inviting folks to share with you the centered set approach to knowing and pursuing Jesus. I am currently going through a set of DVDs called Engage that are rocking a small group I am part of….let me know if you want to borrow them! http://www.carlmedearis.com/engage.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0w1eQyv2d0
September 10th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Martha, I love your heart for the whole church and sensitivity to the dangers of criticism of other church systems. In the post, I was trying to suggest that western culture as a whole is bounded set, so that all western churches tend to function in bounded set terms–that it is a kind of default setting for us culturally. I also think that the different approach to categories (bounded set, centered set, fuzzy set)that different churches adopt have advantages and disadvantages. Hiebert argues for centered set on missional grounds and as more in keeping with Hebrew approach (hence closer to the biblical approach). He thinks the church in general in the west has been too influenced by Greek cultural assumptions. Still I think that there are certain things that the Spirit can work out more effectively in each of these approaches. The AMish can practice more communal living because of the strong bounded set approach, though this comes at a cost (distancing from family members who decided not to live the Amish way, etc.) I think the advantages of centered set approach are particularly helpful in 21st century American context for reaching those who haven’t been reached, at least in a town like A2. In arguing for the advantages of centered set, I think it’s helpful to consider the disadvantages of the bounded set model and making it concrete and illustrated helps that. I think we must keep our hearts open and generous to the whole church as we’re doing that. Ken
September 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Joao,
In the Heibeirt book that I cited, he3 uses the different approach to traffic as an example. Westerners put a high value on fixed boundaries, whereas other cultures have a more fluid approach to boundaries with traffic. You’re arguing for the western approach, but there may be advantages to the eastern approach. Personally, it drives me crazy the way driving happens in other cultures, but the people there don’t seem to feel that way. Different driving skills are developed as people have different expectations of what is good driving.
AS to what makes a centered set church christian, I think it’s promoting discipleship to jesus, taking the next step closer to him all the way to the cross.
Ken
September 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Happylad, yes the kingdom transcends all these other things. But is there a single “kingdom culture” or is the kingdom and influence designed to transform many different cultures from within such that there might be a diversity of cultural expressions that are each authentically kingdom centered? The knowledge that the kingdomtranscends “the cultures of man” puts a big responsiblity on us to discern where our assumptions, especially the hidden ones cause us to call something “kingdom culture” which isn’t–a violation of the first commandment about “taking the Lord’s name in vain.”
September 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Just a matter of history, (not ancient history). When I was in college, missions studies were highly influenced by Peter Wagner. He taught in church growth studies that churches grew best among homogeneous groups. Your approach is turning this concept upside down. Just an observation.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:56 am
~
Bound, Bounded, Michael Binding Satan (Binomially!), and Leviathan Bound or Unbound?
Ken, great post. I’ll go along with the Wimber widget because as a young hippie Jesus freak in So Cal, who came to know Jesus by reading the Gospel of John all alone in my room (I didn’t know the story), I and other freaks were never welcome in most of the other churches back then, digitally speaking, and had no family until hooking into the unbound party of Chuck Smith throwing 500 hippies in the Pacific every month, and John Wimber righteously playing the righteously unbound music.
Today – we really don’t know whether the universe at large, nor the church universe, runs off of digital zeros and ones. Or is continuously variable in Spirit flow. All of our digital versus analog (another dichotomy) mental fictions are really just that – mental fictions that more or less approximate reliable knowledge. And we really don’t know yet whether analog or digital data from sociology will show us that this new wave, after the Third Wave, this new wave of religions “nones” – whether these “nones” are just the new analog and smooth versions of the old bunch of non-creedal church families (Baptists, Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, and so on) – which have hardened into their own digital worlds. We don’t know. Yet.
What we do know if we think and pray unboundedly is that unbound conditions give us infinite results – which sounds really cool until we see that infinite results includes evil results as a subset – so that we persistently come back to William Blake’s, “Michael Binding Satan,” and we persistently come back to whether we want the rest of the Leviathans in our lives – bound or unbound?
It’s a bit fanciful and untrue to attribute unbound and non-digital thinking to any religion – because every religion that’s had a chance has insinuated religious digital thinking into moral and legal codes worldwide – the chief digital bound being criminal versus non-criminal conduct. And after that: boundaries are for properties. And properties are both scientific and legal features.
What is the Spirit binding and unbinding in the churches?
Cheers,
Jim
picture of Michael Binding Satan:
http://intellogos.blogspot.com/2009/09/science-and-theology-tweeting-with-god.html
September 11th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“We need some new nets. Something more than contemporary worship music and great programs that meet needs and pastors who wear clothes from Old Navy.”
Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on some new centered-set nets, because for most churches I know who have a c-set philosophy (mine included) it’s hard to think creatively beyond simple cultural adaptations like the ones you mention we should move beyond. You can find a rock band and blue jeans anywhere now, but what does it look like to really engage people where they are and respect their process? At the same time, how do we encourage and (gulp) challenge people to follow Jesus without several lines in the sand? I find centered-set, in practice, is like a narrow ridge to walk along with a deep, steep ravine on either side: bounded sets and fuzzy sets.
Looking forward to the next installment!
September 12th, 2009 at 11:12 am
David, You’re exactly right about Wagner. This homogenous approach to church growth was a plank in the Church Growth Movement platform. Wimber was part of this movement in early days before Vineyard. I think as a simple “church growth” principle it had it’s merits, especially in communities that were homogenous (e.g. the suburbs of the 1960’s). Since that time, however the harvest field has become much more diverse. Now, I think, in order to reach those who are unreached, it is more important for churches not to be homogenous. The “every nation, tribe, tongue” is a sign of the kingdom, and when it is missing in a local congregation, there is a diminished witness which leads to decreased effectiveness. This is one place where the legacy of Wimber was not helpful for the current harvest.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Joao, the point of the post was not to argue for eastern culture as better than western or vice versa, but simply to help us understand that we operate often by UNEXAMINED cultural assumptions and bounded set thinking is one of those for western culture people.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Ken, I was not arguing about cultures, I was simply stating a concern I have with a pure ‘centered set’ approach to God.
Jesus has a way of demolishing what we tend to see as truth through cultural eyes. I see lots of wisdom in a centered set approach and I welcome it.
I just feel that there should be a blend between the centered set and bounded philosophies.
Maybe you are focusing on the centered set so much because you see an imbalance towards a bounded set in this area.
It’s just that I fear the pendulum swinging too much the other way and we end up encouraging a mind set that claims a love for Jesus but completely ignores his commandments.
I see Jesus offending both camps, so if our message offends the traditional Ann Arbor psyche (ie us claiming salvation is from Jesus, not Mohammad, or Krishna or whatever), so be it.
We (I included) don’t seem to have a problem offending the traditional middle American sensibilities (ie Christians, can drink, smoke, vote Democrat or appreciate other cultures/traditions).
I am just asking for some balance.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:02 am
While you may disagree with me, some boundaries are healthy and needed both in churches and in personal relationships. You make lots of great points, but I have to wonder how are you casting nets to the conservatives (both religiously and politically)? I been reading the past few weeks wondering if there is still a place in Vineyard (Ann arbor) for those of us whom may have some more conservative viewpoints while on other occasions more liberal? While it seems when those who are more conservative attempt to have a voice, ask questions, or to merely challenge another’s viewpoint, they are immediately deemed as “judgmental” or “not accepting”. I mean it we are all really brothers and sisters in Christ, are we not also suppose to sharpen one another?
September 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Wrong AGAIN, Ken.
I know…shocked.
1) Wimber brought Pentecostal thinking to a broader audience. Charismatic/Pentecostals didn’t change a lick other than become more mainstreamed in society and that had little to do w/Wimber or any other ‘movement.’ It’s only cults that think you have to be saved to speak in tongues anyway.
2) Bounded sets are GOOD…not bad.
3) But what’s REALLY funny is that the Pastor of a church in a community with SIGNIFICANT sub-pops of both Blacks AND Asians, yet has a body that is STILL about 80% WHITE…
…is begrudging subsets!
How about busting up the subsets of race that have hallmarked the congregations of EVERY body you’ve pastored since you were ordained!
Again, I don’t believe it’s an issue. I’m a fan of subsets…
BD
PS OK, I’ve exhausted you. I know this is hard, but good God, Ken! At least anticipate the OBVIOUS irony in your blogs before you hit SUBMIT. haha
September 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Cassady, Actually I do agree with you that boundaries are important in churches and in personal relationships. On conservative viewpoints, I have a difficult time knowing what the term means anymore. I think I hold a variety of viewpoints that might be viewed by others as “conservative” (both political and theological.) I think unborn babies should be regarded as persons. I think premarital sex can be one of the most selfish things a person can do. I think governments have a massive potential for corruption. But I find the terms “conservative” and “liberal” to be very problematic when applied to theological matters. It’s just not a biblical category, so I don’t know whey we use it in matters of theology. I think there’s room for many different viewpoints, or ought to be in any church on matters theological and political. Happy to talk more.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“I have a difficult time knowing what the term (conservative)means anymore”
That’s an easy one.
No matter if you are a republican or democrat, if you:
1)Support the legalization of abortion on demand.
2) Think Gay Marriage is morally equivalent with straight marriage and thus should have the same legal status conferred upon it.
3) Think that a major drawback of homeschooling is that it’s ‘draining much needed dollars’ from our Public School Systems.
Then, you are a liberal.
BD
Glad to be of assistance!
September 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
BD
To quote Harry Callahan, ‘you are a legend in your own mind.’
Almost every single point you made is baseless and incorrect.
I would like to see any evidence of ANY of your claims besides your own inflated opinion of yourself.
It’s easy to spout venom when you hide behind initials.
haha
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 am
Joao writes:
“It’s easy to spout VENOM!!”
“You are a legend in your OWN MIND!”
“Your own INFLATED opinion of yourself.”
“Almost every SINGLE point you made is BASELESS and INCORRECT!!”
Wow! And I thought I was just starting to get APPRECIATED around here.
BD
Sharin’ the Love
Feelin’ the hate
It’s all in a day’s work…
September 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Good article! Was my first reaction after reading it , then I thought about it and wondered. Is he promoting a kind of christian relavitism, or christian antinomianism(lawlessness)? I think their are a whole lot of things in christianity that I tend to be agnostic about, and do not have an answer for one way or the other. Then there are other things I am willing to go jump into the ring and go to mat for, as Samwise said in the Lord of the Ring there are “somethings worth fighting for”. I mean that in a non-violent fighting way. I still however think the artilcle is good and thought provoking, but needs some boundaries.