Subscribe to Posts
new nets: bounded sets, fuzzy sets, or centered-sets?
My friend Rick pointed out wonderful summary of set theory as applied to the Christian misison in a gem of a footnote tucked away in Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, by Miroslav Volf. Volf writes from his experience in Croatia during the war there. Bert Waggoner, the National Director of Vineyard USA told me (if memory serves) that Volf has a Pentecostal background. Not your typical ivory tower academic.
To quote Volf’s footnote on p.71: “In analyzing the category ‘Christian’ missiologist Paul Hiebert suggests that we make use of the mathematical categories of ‘bounded sets,’ ‘fuzzy,’ and ‘centered sets.’ Bounded sets function on the principle ‘either/or’; an apple is either an apple or it is not; it cannot be partly apple and partly pear. Fuzzy sets, on the other hand, have no sharp boundaries; things are fluid with no stable point of reference and with various degrees of inclusion–as when a mountan merges into the plains. A centered set is defined by a center and the relationship of things to that center, by a movement toward it or away from it. The category of ‘Christian,’ Hiebert suggests, should be understood as a centered set. A demarcation line exists, but the focus is not on ‘maintaining the boundary’ but on reaffirming the center.”
That’s as good a one paragraph summary of set theory as you’ll find applied to the Christian mission.
The bounded set way of understanding the category “Christian” tends toward clear boundaries of belief or behavior. Those who ascribe to the beliefs and conform to the behaviors are in the set; those who don’t are outside the set. It takes a while to get in, either through a lengthy catechism–in the case of children born into a church tradition, a matter of years, or in the case of adult converts over the course of months. One isn’t allowed in by adhering to only certain of the beliefs. It’s the whole creed or nothing, so the speak. Leaving the bounded set is similarly difficult. The more bounded set, the more social sanctions there are for those who leave.
The centered set approach emphasizes direction and movement. Which way is a person oriented? Is the person moving toward the center or away from the center? The person determines whether he or she is part of the centered set by their orientation toward and movement toward the center.
This fits the biblical motif of pilgrimage. We’re all pilgrims on a journey toward a promised land, to a holy city, to a final destination. We come from many different points of origion, but we are drawn to the common center. This defines the set. To be a Christian, in the centered set understanding of the category “Christian” is to be one who is facing the center (Father-Son-Holy Spirit) and is moving toward the center. Period.
Like the earliest disciples of Jesus. They were disciples by virtue of his summons and their willingness to reorient their lives toward his. To follow him, day by day, step by step. Their beliefs about Jesus at first were fairly unformed. He was their rabbi. They came into a deeper understanding of his identity over time. Their behavior was, at the beginning, whatever it was. They came as they were. They were changed, each them, over time–the way people change. One moment, they might be speaking by the inspiration of the Spirit, at another moment they might be rebuked for channeling the devil. No matter, they followed. Or rather, those who followed, followed.
I like the centered set understanding of the category “Christian” because it fits with the biblical understanding that we are pilgrims. It fits with the understanding that to be a Christian is first and foremost to be a disciple, one who follows, one who learns. Following and learning are processes, not static states.
The centered set approach gives space for people to start where they are and to grow the way people grow–in fits and starts, at a pace that differs from person to person. But it is also demanding, just like the gospel. As Bonhoeffer said, “Jesus bids us come and die.”
Sometimes people think that bounded set is hard and fast–the difficult approach to Christianity and centered set is loosely goosey, laid back, Christianity lite. I think that’s a misunderstanding of a centered set approach. John Wimber said, “God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.”
Tags: Bert Waggoner, bounded set, centered set, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, fuzzy set, john wimber, Miroslav Wolf, paul hiebert, set theory, Vineyard
September 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Good stuff Ken,
So how does one not turn the centered set into bounded by identifying it.
Or how does one keep Jesus as the center without setting down boundaries?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The last couple of posts have got my research brain going. I think there is an interesting distinction to be made between descriptive and proscriptive sets. One of my research areas is cluster analysis, which allows items to be organized in to “clusters” (or sets) based on their “descriptors” (i.e. things which describe them). For example, we might cluster people based on their age, weight, height, smoking status, economic status, etc., and then find that there is a cluster of people with particular ranges of these descriptors that has a particularly high rate of diabetes. The whole process is observational, i.e. we define clusters by observing the data. Clusters can be bounded or fuzzy (usually items are assigned to the “closest” cluster), and a single cluster can be described as a set. Not all members of a cluster will follow a single pattern, but overall we will see characteristics unique to a cluster. We can define a “centroid” which is an imaginary set of descriptors right at the center of the cluster. Now, if we wish, we can convert a descriptive set into a proscriptive one: for instance in the prior example, we would set a rule that membership of the cluster (or set) was dependent on a particular set of values for descriptors, and we would exclude items not fitting the pattern. This would constitute a different cluster, with a lower membership.
I would argue we have perhaps as churches made the mistake of taking descriptive sets (e.g. people who emphasize Bible study and who tend to believe speaking in tongues is quite important) into proscriptive ones (“to be a member of this set, you have to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and to speak in tongues”). Unfortunately, this approach makes clusters “tight” (i.e. with restrictive membership) and thus results in a large number of “singletons” (i.e. people who cannot map to the rules for any of the existing sets).
The huge problem with this is that every member of every set is constrained in some way if they wish to retain set membership, and singletons are not members of any set (unless they change their descriptors!) Further, many set rules are mutually exclusive, so we can’t very well create a “super set” for which all members (and singletons) can consistently belong without violating their subset rules, and it may theoretically be impossible for a person to “change their descriptors” to fit an existing proscriptive set. We know God is accessible to every human being, so this picture must be wrong.
The centered set idea gets round this: we have one set, centered on Jesus, with fuzzy membership (i.e. any human being can belong if they wish), and then churches which form centered subsets based on particular thoughts and interests, all with fuzzy boundaries and defined descriptively. Thus you can belong to both the superset and the subset, with superset membership strong and subsets membership loose.
I keep thinking back to John Wimber’s early vision of the sky bursting and dripping with honey, with the implication there is far more mercy, love and healing than we can ever receive, but the problem in receiving is on our end (as humanity, and as the church). Perhaps part of this problem is that we insist on applying membership criteria for our proscriptive sets before we accept that a person is eligible to receive the status of son or daughter of God? Perhaps if we just *awarded* that status to anyone who wants it, then directed them to the center (Jesus), we’d be in good shape.
I haven’t read the book yet, so apologize if I’m just rehashing something else someone has thought of (I am currently in the habit of doing this…) and for the rambling nature of the post
David
September 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The way you’ve described the centered set in this post gives us so much more clarity. It really is the process of discipleship. I’ve always felt that we have to approach individuals, with differing temperaments and life experiences, with different levels of maturity, in a unique manner. For some, we have to be so long suffering, with others we need to come to them with the “hard” word. And the trick is knowing how and when and who. That’s the beauty of the Holy Spirit. He leads us!
I’ve had the honor of having friends who have lovingly led me, as well as strongly provoked me. I thank God for them all!
September 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
David, Proscriptive vs descriptive….very interesting. Anyone else familiar with set theory out there who would like to comment on David’s thoughts here. Like a Ph.D student whose first name begins with “J” for example? My thoughts per your comment on “those who like to study the bible” (descriptive) vs. “believe in inerrancy” proscriptive [did I get that right David?]–it has always mystified me that groups often seem to weigh a certain belief about the bible (eg that it is inerrant, however that is defined) more than a response to the bible (loving the bible, reading the bible, meditating on scripture, etc.) Would this be an example of proscriptive rather than descriptive approach to sets?
September 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Paul, I think a centered set understanding of categories requires a clear understanding of what the center is, but it would be articulated, by definition, as something toward which people were moving, rather than something (as in the case of a bounded set) that was in some sense “achieved” (e.g. certain behaviors or beliefs ascribed to). The center of Christianity from a centered set perspective would be Jesus himself or the kingdom of God. One could of course further clarify “which Jesus” i.e. the Jesus of the gospels, the risen Jesus, etc. But the distinguishing mark of centered set vs. bounded set would be the movement toward” aspect. A center is something one is related to in other words by orientation and movement.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
On Christ the solid rock we stand, the chief cornerstone, rock of ages…just don’t start calling him fuzzy
.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Ken,
You say “a demarcation line exists.” If so, what is it? And if you can identify it, haven’t you moved from centered-set to bounded-set?
September 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Ken, yes, that is the idea. If all our churches were descriptively defined with fuzzy membership, I think we’d work as a body much better. For example, we might think “I think God is telling me I need to get grounded in the Bible right now. Let’s find some of those people of the book and I’ll hang out with them for a while”, or “I’m hurting! Help! I need the people of mercy. Where is the local Vineyard?” without worrying about the consequences of putting our lot in with whatever group it is. In this way we as a catholic (small c) church meet needs together well, and we get nice cross-fertilization and checks and balances of the clusters too, until we end up, well, just followers of Jesus with a deep, wide and broad experience of him and his body. Instead, we tend to become a “member” of a church and feel the pressure (or be given explicit instruction) to adjust to the “norm” [centroid] which may conflict overall with where we are with God.
One slight difficulty with the centered idea as I see it is that if a church defines itself as a center, it easily becomes a de-facto bounded set through example. If Jesus is the center, then the church loses its ability to define itself, although it can I would think become a “center of excellence” in some regard.
If you have an old copy of Rick Joyner’s “The Harvest” (1989) it’s well worth reading “The fishnet” in chapter 2 (pp35-39). It’s an odd book and not one I usually quote, but it’s an interesting early prophecy of what we’re seeing now, and also refers to “the net” as a way God uses to bring groups of people together long before the rise of the internet!
Well enough confusing ramblings for one day…
September 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
So, I’m pretty sure that to be centered-set in practice a church doesn’t necessarily have to eschew its traditional rites of membership. Can anyone help me out here? I haven’t worked out exactly why that can be so, but my experience says it must be.
After all, the Roman Catholic Church does, officially, consider non-Catholic believers to be real Christians, and as a non-Catholic believer among Catholics, I have been consistently treated and welcomed as a fellow in Christ. We do acknowledge (and mutually respect the fact) that a line around the subset exists, but so does deep, genuine fellowship, mutual blessing and common worship and service. I have experienced inter-denominational fellowship of that quality precisely among Catholics who recognize Christ as our common center. And they are nothing like fringe, rebel Catholics, either.
My point is that, even if it’s the exception rather than the rule, the things that you’re listing as characteristic of a bounded-set church can exist in a church that doesn’t behave like one. And if that is so, then what does it say about defining centered-set Christianity?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:59 am
I’ve read the Wolf book and like the centered set approach. David, thanks for the added insight into descriptive vs proscriptive. I think you’re right in that there are an increasing number of singletons who have taken bits and pieces from various streams of our faith and feel they don’t completely fit any one denomination. It’s a good framework for analysis.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Ken,
This post definitely clarifies the idea of sets. But can we get back to nets now? That was the exciting part that got this whole discussion going. I want some new nets. Can I get an amen?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:09 am
With this new approach with nets and coming away from “bounded set”. How do you think Christians are different in America than in Europe? Do you think we may be trying to Americanize Christianity? If we look at the churches in Latin America, South America, across Asia, and Africa we see a much different picture. While I completely understand where you are coming from, I have to wonder if going too far with this will result in the church conforming to American culture rather than the church being the center of or rock foundation of the culture as in these other areas. If we conform too much what makes us different from the rest of the world?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Cassady, Hiebert argues that centered set approach to categories is more characteristic of non-western societies. So a centered set approach would run counter to the American lean in terms of understanding categories….
September 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
~
David Wild,
Proscription as a function of set theory in the social sciences is less often used in contrast with description (descriptive statistics) than description is used in contrast with inference and analysis (inferential statistics). Description usually means presenting data by using charts, graphs, maths, bell curves and so on, with a little narrative explanation. Inference means making generalizations about the data. Proscription (if this is the way you meant it) usually means having in mind an undesirable behavior, outcome, or state of affairs and then generating practical test case scenarios to minimize or eliminate it.
For example, we talked about slavery in the last thread. Slavery would be the proscribed and undesirable state of affairs. A random sample of a population of slaves could be taken like a sample census to describe and estimate the larger population of slaves (people in the ‘set’ of ‘slavery’). This is description (a descriptive set, or a descriptive statistic). Our random sample would be subject to margins of error about the number of slaves and about the number and severity of negative conditions (to be proscribed). This is inference (inferential statistics). If our inferential statistics tell us that our adjusted number for the actual number of slaves is very small, and that the conditions of slavery are not severe, then we can still act against slavery (proscribe slavery). But we might not need to start a Civil War to do so. We could use the force of loving persuasion (for some) and the force of law (for others). But the proscription is still just that, a proscription.
Mathematicians like to keep their mathematical categories free of moral judgments. So moral proscription is not a mathematical category. The proscription of slavery is a moral end that depends on a policy judgment. I suppose you could introduce proscription into mathematics in sciences like physics because you might want to proscribe (avoid) certain turbulent physical states like nuclear winter. There really is no intrinsic moral judgment in mathematics or set theory to determine social proscriptions.
All three – description, inference, and proscription – can work in combination as in the case of slavery. In the case of slavery, it’s pretty silly to say that bounded-set theory has no value. It’s silly because we are obviously wanting to put bounds on a certain behavior no matter how center-set our motivations are. You could say that proscription merges with bounded-set analysis in the case of slavery. When all forms of these analyses are in play (description, inference, proscription), then the marginal value of using bounded-set or centered-set analysis does not depend on any intrinsic value of bounded-set or centered-set ideas, but instead, the value of set theory depends on the larger goals that set theory serves. Since maths and set theories are not moral categories.
So the real problem with using any mathematics or set theory (or any abstract theology for that matter) to glean spiritual insight is to be extremely careful (as Ken is trying to do here) to listen to what the Spirit is saying through the math in order to bring conviction to us in our local practice. The reason for the necessity of listening to the Spirit is that maths alone do not generate moral or spiritual insights. For instance, there has been an explosion of new maths and new applications of sets and set theories in the social sciences, but, many of these maths do not apply to any known facts in the real world. In other words, a set theory or any other mathematical theory can be: 1) valid by its internal rules, 2) beautiful or even musical in its aesthetic steps and. 3) elegant in taking the shortest, cleanest route to reach a conclusion – but, such a math or set theory may still not apply to anything in the real world. It’s just a neat math. Just like the number “one” does not apply to anything at all. Set theory of any kind is useless for interpreting data unless we already have a theoretical reason to think that any data set is meaningful in the first place. There is no such thing as raw data having meaning. We need a theory to interpret data. We need to hear the Spirit for this.
For a biblical example of how set theory can combine both centered-set and bounded-set thinking with a proscriptive component too, think of the story of Jonathon and his armor bearer. They faced a war situation (a need to act). So they made an agreement together (an inter-subjective agreement – like inter-subjective agreements in the sciences, or in defining math terms) to go up to the Philistine camp to discern a sign from God in the conversation of the Philistines. Their proscriptive objective was to end their enslavement to the Philistines (proscriptive goal) in order to be free to worship God (centered-set goal) and they used a method of seeking a bounded-set sign from God in order to get their answers how (bounded-set: an either/or answer, a yes/no, as the ‘sign’ from God, to go to war, or not go to war).
Again, no mathematics nor set theory of any kind can proscribe or expand our spiritual goals. We need to hear the Spirit for this. Only in the larger knowledge of the purpose of the Spirit (what science or math calls a larger “theory” of interpretation for data) can we have any basis for using set theory of any other metric to learn the specific combinations of centered-set or bounded-set actions we should take.
Cheers,
Jim
September 29th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
We are supposed to work out our faith with fear and trembling, we are changed from glory to glory, I get the whole pilgrim thing.
What I don’t get is probably the same thing Jiao was dealing with earlier maybe someone who gets it can explain:
At what point is someone a Christian according to center-set?
When they turn around and face center or after they pass this line? Someone might be curious about Jesus for a while and facing the center but then can turn away again – so with my understanding they were not “saved” or they were saved but now they have grieved the holy spirit and can no longer return?… Hmmm….
I’ll look up bible verses to support the ideas I just wrote down but it’s time for bed…. night.
– OR – does my question above not matter because it misses the point? Which as I understand is just to be facing Jesus? and hopefully moving toward him?
September 30th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Cassady,
The difference between Christianity in America verses Europe is this: Christianity is all but dead in Europe and if we follow their example we will probably see the same results.
I can’t help but think of how Islam grew exponentially after 9/11. Young people flocked to Islam. Why? I think they saw something people were willing to die for. I think they saw a VERY bounded set and they liked it. They are already feeling boundary-less and are crying out for more.
The ministry I’m involved with calls young people to radical lives of holiness and wholehearted devotion to God. We would be called extremely “bounded” by some. Yet we are growing at a very fast and steady pace. Thousands of young people (the vast majority of which are extremely aware of environmental responsibility and for the most part quite educated) are flocking to the call to give all of their lives to seek God.
So what does that say about this generation?
September 30th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Brian,
As Hiebert explains it both centered sets and bounded sets have demarcation lines. In fact, both can have very clear demarcation lines. The difference is where the emphasis is placed. Bounded set groups focus on enforcing the boundary, centered set groups emphasize the importance of everyone moving toward the center.
One might argue that it’s possible to do both. Make a point of enforcing membership boundaries while encouraging all toward discipleship.
Personally, I see Jesus engaged in diluting the boundaries not enforcing them (engaging heavily with those the Pharisees tended to exclude) while at the same time raising the bar significantly in terms of what it means to move toward the center (going beyond keeping the law to take up your cross).
September 30th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Bob,
Understood. I can appreciate that the difference is where the emphasis is placed. But if a demarcation line exists, I still think it a fair question to ask what it is? I don’t think I disagree with anything you wrote. But if a line exists, and it seems we agree it does, what do you think it is?
Biblically, I don’t see how it can be anything other than believing on Christ as Savior and Lord. What else could/would it be?
I lead a church where we emphasize belonging before believing, etc. We aren’t overly focused on “who’s in and who’s out”. In many ways, we are probably decent examples of centered-set in practice. But there is still a line. I believe it is receiving Christ as Savior/Lord. And you?
October 1st, 2009 at 9:12 am
It appears in our effort to not have a bounded set we are trying to form a bounded set in order to define centered set.
Yet IF I am reading correctly what a centered set is, it doesn’t initially matter if you believe in Jesus to “belong”. What matters is the group is pointed towards Jesus as the center and everything done is focused on Him. Romans 11:38.
A “fuzzy set- centered set” combination or sort of a Christian anarchy seems to be more biblical to me. It takes some doing to define but puts the focus on what the Father is doing and where He is pointed vs where we are pointed. SO we only do what we see the Father doing. Inside out much more organic.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
Interesting discussion! In a several of the posts there seems to almost be an equating of the Kingdom and the church. The discussion started with the idea of a centered-set church and has shifted to a discussion of whether there is an in/out boundary in terms of who is saved/unsaved. Part of the confusion might be our definition of “church.” Is it the community of people in a certain place who gather together for the sake of drawing closer to God each week, or is it those people who are “saved” by some definition?
Jesus’ parables might be helpful for this discussion, IMHO. The parable of the sheep and the goats does indeed suggest that there will be a separation–in vs. out. As do many of the other parables: the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), the Wedding Feast (Matt 22/Luke 14). This certainly suggests that there will be a sorting at a coming judgment; those who are saved (inherit eternal life) and those who are not.
But that doesn’t to me suggest it’s our job to make those distinctions in this present age. If we do, I think we’re erring on the question of who gets to judge (us or Jesus) and when the judgment happens (now versus a future judgment). And I think we’ll get it wrong a lot of the time.
Also, if you read the parable of the Tares (Matt 13), it would seem that God, in his patience, is NOT separating the saved from the unsaved in the present age. So why should we?
I don’t think Ken is in any way trying to define at what point someone gets “saved.” The “set” in “centered set” is not referring to who is “saved.” I believe it’s referring to the church–and the people who get to participate in the life of the church.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Brian, good point.
I would think the line should be clear and simple, just like the basic Gospel. It should be based on a personal understanding and acceptance of the inherent separation from God that we all share from birth, and on whether we depend on our own efforts or rest on Jesus to cross this separation and reunite us to God.
There are many ways to describe the above, but those 2 facts must be accepted. That’s what Jesus preached and came for at its most basic level.
Of course only God truly knows where one’s heart truly is regarding this, so we can only discern this in others (and sometimes darkly) through the fruits in their lives.
So back to this increasingly (needlessly?)complicated centered set/bounded set discussion, I am making the claim that there is a ‘boundary’ to the centered set, it is very large in diameter, likely larger tham many of us think, but there has got to be one, otherwise, churches and are social organizations like the Kiwanis. Not a bad thing, but not what Jesus’s Kingdom is all about.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Brian and Joao, I’ll get to centered set soon! And it is a set, not a non-set. It is a way of understanding categories in other words. There is an inside to a centered set group and an outside but it is arrived at differently: by orientation to the center and movement toward the center. A person can be very close to the center but not oriented toward it or moving toward and by definition that person is not part of the centered set. A cause of great confusion in understanding centered set has to do with thinking it is NOT a set, when it is.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
My wife is not a believer, and I am. She comes to church. She engages in outreach activities. Serving activities. She sings. She takes communion with me. She just participated in the women’s retreat at my church. She is interested. She wants to learn more. She likes hanging around my believer friends. Is she a member of the church? Well, she certainly acts like one. And I think she would like to be a Christian, but she isn’t there yet. Is she a Christian? No. Is she a contributing member of the church? Yes. Is she following Jesus? Well, she appears to be following the followers of Jesus.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I think one of the challenges of the whole centered set approach is that it’s quite hard to say who is part of the “set” and who isn’t. Would people in the “set” even identify as such? How does one define moving toward or away from the center? Some have described the bounded set approach as “soft at the center, hard at the edges” and the centered-set approach as “hard at the center, soft at the edges.” I think that suggests part of the difficulty people have with centered-set thinking: it’s quite hard to know who is in and out of the set.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I like this, from Frost & Hirsch (The Shaping of Things to Come):
“In the bounded set, it is clear who is in and who is out (fences, not wells), based on a well-defined ideological-cultural boundary –usually moral and cultural codes as well as creedal definitions.. but it doesn’t have much of a core definition beyond these boundaries. It is hard at the edges, soft at the center.”
The centered set, on the other hand, “is like the Outback ranche with the wellspring at its center. It has very strong ideology at the center but no boundaries. It is hard at the center, soft at the edges. We suggest that in the centered set lies a real clue to the structuring of missional communities in the emerging culture.
“The traditional church makes it quite difficult for people to negotiate its maze of cultural, theological, and social barriers in order to get “in.”.. and by the time newcomers have scaled the fences built around the church, they are so socialized as churchgoers that they are not likely to be able to maintain their connection with the social groupings they came from…
“We propose a better and more biblical way.. is to … sink wells. If you sustain your connection with the water sources, you will find a whole host of people relating to Jesus from different walks of life. We allow people to come to Jesus from any direction and from any distance. The Person of Jesus stands.. at the center.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I agree with Joao that this seems needlessly complicated. Ken and Bob both said there is a line of demarcation in the centered set. Seems like a reasonable and simple enough question to ask “what is it?”
You aren’t arming us to point at those who haven’t crossed the line yet to simply acknowledge what you think the line might be. Not looking for “us and them” ammunition here. Just curious what you think the line, that you say exists, is.
Ok, Ken says he’ll get to the centered-set soon.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
The whole discussion still leaves me somewhat unsettled. I think Don is on to the “why” behind the difficulty in defining the centered set, because even then, our fallen minds want to know who is in and who is out. The story of the sheep and the goats, which is the ultimate bounded set, in the story both groups did not know who they were serving.
Sheep; “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink?”…“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[f] you were doing it to me!’
Goats; “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
Everyone wants to be in the sheep set, but if you are, you will have little awareness of that set until Jesus gathers the nations and separates religious people at the end of the age. I bring absolutely nothing to this discussion on who is in and out. Most of the time I am convinced I am a goat. People that are so confident in their “sheepishness” make me uneasy. But then I remember the thief on the cross and his words, “remember me.”
Criminal; “But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
That’s the set I can identify with, the criminal set. And at the end of the age, I hope he remembers me.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Hmmm. Gem, I think He desires us to be “confident in His love”. I don’t think it is His desire for us to live in the place of doubting His love, or fearing we’re “outside”. I think we should have an “inner witness” that He lives within and that He cares for His own.
I’ve ALWAYS believed that the sheep and goat parable in Matthew 25 is talking about nations and not individuals. I believe they will be those who took care of God’s people when others stood by and let them be imprisoned, tortured and killed without saying a word. He said He would gather the nations.
I honestly can’t live in that place of uncertainty. I need to be sure of the Father’s love for me.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Brian,
I would agree with your definition of believing in Jesus ad Lord and Savior. I’d also add that I think “belief” implies more than mental assent (even demons know who Jesus is). In the Gospel of John, at least, “believing” entails an active trust which one might summarize as “following”.
In fact this is what I think gives such power to the centered set approach because at the heart is a simple concept… Are you following, or moving toward, Jesus? That’s what matters. You might believe (as in mental assent) one thing, and I might believe another, but if we’re both heading toward the center, it’s all good.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Gem.
I think that a big difference between the sheep and goats is that the sheep did not seem to feel a sense of entitlement to heaven that the goats seemed to feel.
Which brings me back to my earlier point…only those who do not depend on their own virtue but on Jesus as their ‘heaven ticket’ will be allowed into heaven.
Brennan Manning has a great picture in one of his books of a multitude of ‘religious’ people waiting by he ‘pearly gates’ to be let into heaven when all of the sudden, they see another crowd, the prostitutes, criminals and other ‘heathen’ also approaching the gates and being let in. The ‘righteous’ folk fly into a rage that these unclean folk are being let in, curse God and end up going straight to hell.
If you feel like a goat, I think wanting to be a sheep is a great sign.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Happylad, thanks for the comments. I have been a believer/weak-follower of Jesus for many years and have experienced the “I’m saved” crowd and I don’t like much of what it looks like to those who are outside, or perceived to be outside. While we talk about salvation by grace, once we have received it, many of us present ourselves as achieving and attaining when we have done neither. I’m most comfortable identifying with the thief on the cross because he brought nothing to the table and he didn’t say the “sinners’ prayer.” He realized he deserved his punishment and that Jesus did not. This was enough for Jesus.
If we truly understood the kindness and severity of God, I think we would realize we are all outside until he calls us home. On this side of the kingdom none of us are in, yet.
Joao, thanks for the comments. I agree with you that the entitlement to heaven that many people express may point to a disingenuous acceptance of the free gift offered. I have never understood why so many of us do this. Maybe it is immaturity for some, but for those that study the bible and have been around for awhile, I get nervous. I love Brennan’s books and have read them all.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
hmmm… I feel entitled to heaven. I did not put myself here on earth to make the choice to serve and believe God or not. This is one of my main troubles – I think for some reason I should not feel this way but alas I do.
God knew we would choose to eat the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and allow sin into our world. Thus creating the chasm between us and the need for Jesus.
I believe in his omnipotence he knows everything from the beginning to the end.
So I somehow do not feel responsible for being here or being a sinner. Because truly it was not my choice.
I came to a point in my faith where I had to choose to believe that God was good or otherwise he would be a Bad because he created people knowing he would send some to hell. It just does not make sense to me. Being that my sister could be the one who goes to hell since she does not choose to follow Jesus. Did he create her for “common purposes?” (the potter and clay example Romans 9:19-23) The bible says for God so loved, but I just don’t see Love as being the initiator for creating a world where people go to Hell…
Ultimately, I choose to believe that God is Good and I just don’t have the capacity to understand why he put us here in the first place. Maybe this is putting my head in the sand a bit but I see too many proofs for God and Jesus that I can’t discount them. There is more evidence for me to believe than to not believe.
So if anyone has an insider knowledge of why we are here in the first place that would be great for me.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
SunflowerRae, you were created for heaven on earth, we all were. The severity of God is reflected in his willingness to suffer for and with us. The goodness of God is reflected in his unwillingness that any of us would perish. But the greatest gift he has given us is free will. There is mystery associated with this freedom and it is hidden in God’s love for us. I think his mercies are greater than any of us have ever imagined.
I don’t presume to answer your questions, these are just some thoughts.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I like the idea of heaven on earth – like in the garden, I have heard before that we needed to be given free will so that we weren’t made as robots (but then again what’s so bad about robots? At least they would not have had to be separated from God for sinning). Free will is indeed a mystery to me. I guess robots would not experience Love as God wanted us to experience it. Another thought I had was did God create us to Love him, I’ve also heard thoughts like there was some deal with satan over whether people would choose to serve God and not themselves?
I do appreciate you thoughts and maybe I have everyone stumped on this one. Why did God create all this in the first place? Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?
October 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
SunflowerRae.
I think the question of why God created us can be only approached, not answered definitively. Not every question we ask has an answer.
I personally love to create things (build, modify, repair). I actually feel a ‘high’ when deep in the creative process, so maybe God has the same sense in creating. Maybe it’s part of me being made in the image of God that I so enjoy creating.
But that’s the best I can do….guess.
When you meet God face to face, maybe you can ask.
=)
Joao