Comments on: New Nets: Beyond Bounded Set Fishing

By: Vandy

Vandy — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:04 +0000

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.

By: B...D

B...D — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:58:22 +0000

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…

By: joao

joao — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:13:40 +0000

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

By: B...D

B...D — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:19:57 +0000

“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!

By: ken

ken — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:50:53 +0000

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.

By: B...D

B...D — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:28:45 +0000

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…

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

By: Cassady

Cassady — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:02:54 +0000

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?

By: joao

joao — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:42:58 +0000

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.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:13:33 +0000

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.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:15 +0000

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.