Subscribe to Posts
new nets: intrinsic or extrinsic sets?
I think we need to introduce another aspect of set theory that missionary Paul Heibert describes in his book, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. I know, I know, this is not simple and we all want to cut to the chase and look at centered sets. But it’s necessary, given the questions about “who is a Christian?” that have surfaced in the blog.
But first, a reminder about where this got started for me. I think we need new nets. That is, we need new ways to draw and gather those who are being drawn and gathered to Jesus. More, I think Jesus has some new nets to offer us. If you don’t think we need new nets– that everything is working just fine with the ones we have, then this discussion is going be irrelevant or worse, annoying.
Some comments seem to suggest that new nets aren’t needed, everything is going great as is. I think it’s quite possible that in different settings everything is fine and new nets aren’t needed. But I’m deeply (or stubbornly?) convinced that new nets are needed to reach those who haven’t been reached by the existing ones–at least for the people I know who are on the outside of faith looking in. Plus I had that experience in prayer where I saw Jesus offering new nets. So I’m kinda dug in on this.
Also, I realize that this all seems complex, and that there is a natural distrust of complexity. But that doesn’t bother me. Missionaries have to buckle down and think new thoughts. Missionaries have to examine the cultures they are trying to reach and that means examining their own cultural assumptions. It’s labor intensive. Not everyone is interested in it, or called to do it. But I’m interested and feel called.
John Wimber, who shaped the Vineyard movement, was interested and felt called. He studied under Paul Heibert (who is now deceased, by the way) at Fuller Theological Seminary. Wimber is the one who took Heibert’s teaching on set theory adapted to missions and tried to apply it. Like it or not, Vineyard has been shaped by this, so for that reason alone, I’m interested. As a matter of fact, I think Wimber talked about set theory at the first Vineyard pastors conference I ever attended (in Denver, early 1990’s), which is probably why I’ve always thought this was a central concern of my tribe. The way Vineyard works, there’s probably lots of other Vineyard pastors who don’t see it that way, but I do. (By the way if there are any Vineyard pastors out there who can direct me to Wimber’s talk at that conference, I’d love to know how I can get my hands on it.)
So, if you’re still on this bus, let’s move on to the distinction Heibert makes between intrinsic sets or extrinsic sets. “Intrinsic sets are formed based on the essential nature of the members themselves–on what they are in and of themselves.” (Heibert, p. 110) Apples are apples by virtue of being apples. Most nouns in English, according to Heibert, are intrinsic.
Extrinsic sets are formed on the basis, not of what they are in themselves, but on their relationship to other things. An apple is not an apple by virtue of it being related to anything in particular. But a friend is a friend by virtue of their relationship to another person.
It seems to me that the term “Christian” is an intrinsic label, while the term “follower of Jesus” is an extrinsic label. While my brother-in-law assures me that the word “Christian” doesn’t actually mean “little Christ,” that is a standard way for Americans to understand what the word Christian means. It’s also a bounded set way. A Christian is a person who is like Christ [or a "little Christ"] according to that common understanding of the term “Christian.” That particular definition of what the word Christian means–commonly assumed by American Christians to be the meaning of the term–is a classic example of intrinsic thinking at work.
A “follower of Jesus,” by contrast, leans toward an extrinsic understanding. Lots of people who are not very much like Christ (Mary Magdalene, who wasn’t a male like Christ, or Cornelius, who wasn’t a Jew like Christ) can be followers of Christ.
Heibert, not surprisingly classifies bounded sets as an an example of an intrinsic set while centered sets are one example of an extrinsic set.
This is a big reason Heibert thinks that centered set is closer to Hebrew and therefore biblical thought than it is to Greek and therefore western thought. (American culture is closer to western thought than Hebrew, obviously.)
Don’t worry, we’ll get there eventually.
Tags: bounded sets, centered sets, john wimber, Paul Heibert, set theory, Vineyard
October 6th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
At this point in my life, I’m happy to cast the widest net possible, be inclusive as possible, love and embrace people no matter how they judge me or what “religion” they claim to follow, and yes even embrace my enemies. I’ll let God judge all the other stuff.
I think this is the cross – profound Spiritual freedom, free from tribal posturing, free to love with reckless abandon and little concern for religious protocol. All of it died on the cross, and what remained was radically inclusive love.
Good post.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
John, I like how you think.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I’m sorry, but your description of how Americans commonly define “Christian” is utterly foreign to me. I’ve never known anyone at any time in my life–Christian or non-Christian–who thought that Christians were either little Christs or like Christ (except possibly in a mystical/theological sense). I’m afraid your suggestion of “Christ follower” seems way more common to me, but maybe it’s the company I keep and the books I read.
Also, I keep waiting for you to give me some idea of why Heibert thinks Hebrew culture is centered-set. Membership was so strictly defined by ancestry and circumcision that I simply cannot imagine what he could be talking about. Jesus certainly was up against it when he was arguing with the Pharisees and Sadducees. And so was the Holy Spirit when the early believers were sorting things out. It simply is not apparent to me what could have been centered-set about that culture. Help me out here.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Martha, Sorry I probably wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that people defined what Christian person is that way, but when asked “What does the word ‘Christian’ actually mean?” the common definition I’ve heard is “little Christ.” It’s a fairly standard homiletic thing–that the word itself means “little Christ.”
Heibert’s main reason is that the Greek worldview in general is focused on the “essential nature of a thing” going back to Plato, etc. [Platonic forms, etc] whereas the Hebrew worldview is much more relational, in comparison. Bounded set follows the Greek worldview (western worldview) and the centered set follows the Hebrew worldview because a thing is more defined by relationship than by essential nature.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Martha, one other thing: while the various Jewish parties were very polemical–with each other–everyone more or less accepted the fact that they were all part of the Jewish people. It’s only been in recent times that Christians who have strong theological disagreements have acknowledged their common faith.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
We are a relational species. We live in groups. We are not generally solitary creatures, only when something has gone wrong. Oh yes. We do like time alone. Time alone with God. But this isn’t for long, is it? No.
We are from time to time persuaded to think logically. In a radically logical fashion. But this method unfortuneately misses that our predominately meaningful method of being is relational.
Logic bows to love. And love bows to nothing else but itself.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:52 am
i am really loving this deep discussion of centered-set and the conversation has been enlighting.
i think the relational-aspect found in centered-set theory with regards to new nets is terribly important…we have to get this and do it.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am
You all may find this NYT op-ed column interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/opinion/13brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
David Brooks writes about social cognitive neuroscience. One paragraph in particular stood out to me in terms of this discussion.
“Many of the studies presented here concerned the way we divide people by in-group and out-group categories in as little as 170 milliseconds. The anterior cingulate cortices in American and Chinese brains activate when people see members of their own group endure pain, but they do so at much lower levels when they see members of another group enduring it. These effects may form the basis of prejudice.”
October 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
So brain surgery can help us be more like Jesus?
October 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Seriously, though.
This may be off topic, but the above hints at how our brains can be affected by cultural norms and what we choose to accept as reality.
I am having a heck of a time wrapping my brain around a centered set mentality. I seem to always drift back to bounded set. It’s an effort to force myself to think centered set.
For example, when I see someone who is outside my bounded set group of believers (unrepentant homosexual, pro-choice, political liberal, muslims, atheists) I automatically (apparently in 170 milliseconds), place them in the ‘unbeliever’ category.
As I say this though, as far as sharing Jesus’s message, wouldn’t we need to make this differentiation in order to actually decide to share the gospel with someone? I mean we have missionaries choosing to go to, say Afeganistan, precisely because they have made the ‘judgment’ that the Afghans are generally outside the Christian bounded set and need to be invited in.
So I am now back to bounded set thinking.
You know, car repair is much simpler than this…..
October 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
~
Swanee (October 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am).
Exactly! Which is why I mentioned objective measures, like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), to reveal our horrible and lightening-fast prejudices. The IAT uses neurological time intervals to catch us.
How to apply these neuroscience facts to this discussion?
Painfully.
The idea that we can use Heibert’s set theories to test our own biases is wrong because our real biases are much deeper and faster than we can cognitively catch by using any mathematic set theory. We can think that we have learned something from Heibert. Until an objective test (usually through pressure in relationships or in our environment) forces our deep bias to surface. Otherwise, we are just ignorantly and unwittingly using Heibert and set theory to fake ourselves out. By “thinking” we are checking some deep bias.
A case in point. Heibert and his beloved set theory stuff was deployed later by Fuller Seminary exactly as a counter-measure against John Wimber. Heibert was enlisted to confirm a theological bias against Wimber’s signs and miracles! Heibert was used against Wimber (if I understand this history correctly) to bring more “balance” (ah, how we enlist “balance” to confirm our bias!) to signs and wonders, and to appease those who were offended by Wimber’s own bias.
In addition, for all his talk about checking our cultural biases, there were many western cultural biases which Heibert himself refused to check and put aside. Starting with his beloved western biblical literalism. Heibert never did embrace a robust Augustinian view of scripture. Which would have been one proof that Heibert’s western cultural bias of biblical literalism had been checked. Alas.
It’s impossible for us to check the kinds of deeper and faster cultural biases that Heibert calls us to check.
The neuroscience study you cited is one among many evidences for how we are enslaved by biases, while thinking we are smart enough to check them!
On the other hand, the Spirit can use any concept – including set theory – as a mechanism to check our bias. As a part of a larger discipleship of correction. What we cannot do, the Spirit can. So the burden is on Ken to express in clear terms the kind of bias-check which Ken feels impressed on him through this form of discipleship. And to express in clear terms the new nets he feels impressed ought be the replacements.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Wow Jim, some good words of knowledge there!
Brings to mind how Paul says we ‘only know in part’.
An issue we can run into as believers is an over-emphasis on our own knoewledge and supposed ‘wisdom’.
It’s fine to cite studies and new psychological discoveries, but I think we must never forget that we are still at our very core, broken, sinful beings and should never rely too strongly on our own wisdom.
I think the Bible says our hearts are very deceitful. Many cults seem to be started by well intentioned folks that seem to think they found some new way to serve God and that they have some ‘new’, previously unknown wisdom others lack.
So I think we need to be careful and what Jim mentions is a good reminder.
Joao
October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The problem with the center-set theory is that it is extremely hard to live it out in “real life”. Don’t get me wrong, I happen to agree with the center-set mentality, but man is it is hard to follow…
I have recently been convicted by both God and some mentors on this point. You see, I have been part of a leadership team for a Vineyard church plant for the past three and half years in a community that is ~80% LDS. From the very beginning we adopted a “love everyone” method of evangelism as we didn’t want to get into theological debates with the people – we just wanted them to have an encounter with the Living God.
Yet even with that “center-set sounding” methodology, I found myself more concerned about people attending the church plant then following the Living Lord. Deep inside I wanted the LDS people to stop attending their ward and start going to the Vineyard. Seeing how the LDS church has some serious theological issues, I figured I was “justified” in wanting them to “switch over.”
However, God began to hit me over the head with a 2×4 these last few weeks – telling me that all I’m suppose to do is show them Christ. He will take care of the rest. If He wants them to separate themselves from the LDS church, he will do it. If He wants them to stay inside the LDS church, then they will. That is His choice, not mine. (Note that this approach is similar to the “Christian Muslim” approach used in Islamic counties.)
This is the hard part of the center-set theology, you have to let God direct the people – which is very, very hard to do when you are trying to plant a church! =?