Subscribe to Posts
new nets: centered set, at last!
So this is what it looks like: a centered set way of conceiving of categories–in this case the category “Christian.” Christians are those who are oriented toward the center (Jesus) and are willing to take the next step closer to Him. Christians, in other words, are followers of Jesus. They start wherever they are (every day), orient toward Him, and move in his direction. Like pilgrims coming to the Holy City from many different points of origin.
It doesn’t matter so much in a centered set way of understanding the category “Christian” whether a person is close to or far away from the center. Let me restate that more carefully, it doesn’t matter so much from the perspective of whether or not they are viewed as Christian, or whether or not they are considered to be part of the Christian community. (Of course it matters whether we are close to the destination or far away, but not for the sake of our understanding of the category.)
But notice something in the diagram, which comes straight out of Paul Hiebert’s introduction of set theory to missions thinking. There is a delineation between those are who are in the category and outside the category. It looks like a loopy line of dental floss though, rather than a solid circle, as in the bounded set.
In a very real sense, it’s up to the pilgrim to decide whether or not they are part of the centered set. To be “in” you orient toward the center and take the next step closer. From wherever you happen to be at any given time, you decide to follow Jesus.
Before we get into all the ramifications of this, please keep in mind: this is a conceptual tool, an aid to our thinking. It reflects different ways that we human beings have of understanding what a category is. According to Hiebert, there are three main ways of understanding categories: a bounded set way, a fuzzy set way (we haven’t tackled that one yet) and a centered set way.
Different cultures tend to fall into one or another of these ways of understanding categories. Hiebert makes the case that the Greek-Western way of thinking of categories prefers the bounded set conception and that the Hebrew way of thinking of categories prefers the centered set approach. The Greeks focused on the intrinsic essence of things: a chair is a chair because it has chair like qualities. Whereas the Hebrews focused on the relationship between things. A chair is a chair because someone sits on it.
Lets also remember that humanity is a messy business. Nothing is as consistent as some of us want it to be. Most actual human groups probably share aspects of bounded set and centered set thinking. For example, a centered set church might only consider human beings as candidates to be in the category “Christian.” Inanimate objects or other creatures are not elible to be part of the category “Christian” or members of the Christian community. Very bounded set thinking! 
One could have a centered set church which includes a membership with membership requirements. If you fulfill the membership requirements (participate in the community, give as you are able, serve as able, respect the by-laws or rules of engagement) then you are a member. If not, you are not. But in a centered set church, the bounded set aspects would be kept to a minimum.
In a centered set church, the center needs to be clear. And the church needs to understand how to articulate the center. In our church we have four core values: Jesus is our center; the Gospel is our message; the Bible is our book; Love is our aim. These values are “core” because they are part of our center. We consider the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed to be faithful summaries of our understanding of the Jesus who is the center.
This is the center toward which those who identify with our church are willing to move. It doesn’t meant that every member of the church has digested, understood, can articulate and swear allegiance to every article of the Nicene Creed. But it means that they understand this is our center and they are willing to move in the direction of Jesus understood in this framework. It’s not the gnostic Jesus we are moving toward. It is the Jesus of the canonical gospels followed by the church in history which understood Jesus in the context of the larger story summarized in those creeds.
This is a substantial but not exhaustive approach to the articulation of the center, what C.S. Lewis calls “mere Christianity.” We don’t have a position on the doctrine of predestination or statements of the exact nature of the Eucharist-Lord’s Supper, or a whole set of positions on particular moral questions there at the center. It’s enough to say what we’ve said, for us, that is, knowing that Jesus has the answer to all those other matters.
If you want to follow Jesus; if the Gospel is your message; if the Bible is your book; if Love is your aim–well, then lets go together! Jesus is a Risen and Living Lord; he has given us His Spirit to guide us; we’re not alone on the journey, so he can help us with all the other things that come up along the way. That’s one expression of a centered set approach.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Ken, clear and succint.
Why didn’t you express this in the way you did on the 1st place?
Now it’s clearer to me.
I’d venture to suggest what you describe above could be used as the description of the church’s values in the newcomer’s brochure and the web site.
Joao Marcos
October 16th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I hate to bother any of Ken’s readers with REALITY as you get sucked further down the rabbit hole of this silly and protracted “centered-set” navel-gazing that makes even a John Bonham drum solo seem measured, but I have a message for those who voted for President Obama.
In other words, MOST of the…ummm…er…ahh…Christians…at the Ann Arbor Vineyard!
When President Bush named JESUS as one of his favorite political philosophers, liberals went CRAZY. But after Obama’s HAND-PICKED White House spokesperson revealed one of her favorite political philosophers was MASS MURDERER Mao Tse-tung, Obama supporters DEFENDED her.
Elections have consequences no matter what ’set’ you fantasize about being in.
Hope you are all proud of yourselves…
BD
Voice of Reason
October 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Joao, we’re one step ahead of you! Soon to be an addendum to our Vision & Values brochure.
Ken, in the centered set description above, would someone who is in a time of “backsliding” not be considered a Christian, because they are not presently taking the next step? Or someone who has stagnated spiritually, because, frankly, they aren’t taking *any* next steps? I’d think half the church would be in that category.
As a kid I made a very conscious decision to follow Jesus wholeheartedly. But during my high-school years I didn’t consider myself a Christian (I thought they were ignorant and judgmental) and had a lot of contempt for religion in general. I would have said that I liked Jesus, but certainly wasn’t a “follower.” I shared this with my mom at one point (who was a Jesus follower), and her response was that “once you get born into God’s family, you don’t get un-born.” Very bounded-set. Once you make the choice, say the prayer, get forgiven, you’re in.
By the centered-set definition above, I wasn’t a Christian at this time. But in my mom’s view, I was, because I had been “born again” as a child of God, and nothing can separate us from the love of God. I’m no Calvinist, but I gotta say I like this idea.
This gets back to some questions that were asked in previous posts. What does the set “Christian” (as described above) have to do with being “saved”? Can you be saved and not be a Christian? Can you be a Christian and not be saved? Do these sets have anything to do with each other?
Great topic! My head is spinning.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I knew someone was going to bring this up! To your backsliding question: Lets say that the direction of the arrow refers to the person’s heart-orientation known to God. The persons fundamental heart orientation, which differs from the vagaries of the movements of the heart from moment to moment, day to day, week to week. And lets talk about the fundamental willingness to move toward the center, known also to God. Because modern Christianity has been heavily influenced by rationalism, we have tended to have a huge emphasis on “points of decision”. WE get saved with the point of decision around the sinners prayer. One moment we’re out, then we’re in. And there IS SOMETHING TO THIS. There ARE transformative moments. We are exhorted to decide for this that and the other. It’s all good. Decisions are important. We have a will that is engaged in loving God and responding to him. But this has been such a pronounced emphasis in our familiar Christianity, that we sometimes go overboard with it. We decide sure, but we are also chosen.
Regarding the other question of when a person is or becomes a Christian. This is where set theory bumps into limits as a tool, and where the various metaphors of what it means to be a Christian bump into each other. A Christian is a person who “follows after Jesus” and a Christian is a person who is “in Christ.” Not partly in Christ, partly out of Christ. In Christ. It is Paul’s mystical language, born of his experience, I think.
It corresponds to the Hebrew sense of belonging to the people of God. One belongs because one belongs–it’s a deep identity with one’s people. Like being a Bromley. I think moms get mystical about their sons when their sons are wandering. I get mystical about my kids when they are wandering. Pre-destination is a parents doctrine. Free will is a young man’s game! But the centered set model does have an inside and an outside. It’s just that the centered set model is more friendly to the following Jesus metaphor, the pilgrim motif, than it is to the
“being in Christ” metaphor.
Set theory, after all, is a tool to help US think about the church in light of how we understand categories. But the church is also a reality known to God. He doesn’t need set theory to help him sort these things. He’s got it all down.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
In the case of the “centered set” Vineyard mentality there appears be an undocumented but quite evident aim at the organizations center, which you neglected to identify, “to be culturally relevant and ACCEPTED”. Unfortunately, this cultural acceptance has the effect of modifying the interpretation and understanding of the originally intended “centers” of aim. A centered set, without substance defined at the center and clearly identified path of progression, appears to be a self-defined moving target, of which who would now if the organizations patrons are subject to the centers gravitational pull or the constant current of the culture.
If cultural acceptance is not one of the Vineyard’s (I can only speak of Ann Arbor Vineyard) centers of aim, then there appears to be a significant double standard within the church. On one side, you have clearly stated in this posting that it is the specific intention of the church not to take a stance on particular moral issues or address such issues, since the center of the church is not these issues but rather, Jesus, the Bible, and Love. However, on the other side such issues as Evolution, Global Warming, etc. are causally paraded on Sunday mornings as if they are accepted without discussion. Contrary to Ann Arbor-ites belief these are still issues, particularly Evolution, that the conservative church and many christians do not accept. It appears that the churches stance is more dictated by cultural acceptance and taboo. If culture agrees, so do we. If it is taboo, or conservative, “its not at our center, let the spirit guide you.”
October 16th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Mr. ‘Voice of Reason’
I don’t seem to grasp the connection between this ’set’ discussion and US presidential politics, but FWIW, the same person that admired Mao in your story also admired Mother Teresa.
But I digress.
Don, your last paragraph is key.
On one hand, the bounded set seems to offer more security, if you are within it, where the centered set seems scarier, because there is no threshold by which to get one’s moorings on their status with God (I may be walking towards Jesus now, but what happens next week?)
I have always strongly believed that ‘once saved, always saved’, not because of your birth family, but because of a decision to follow Christ.
The trick is that only you and God know your own heart and thus only you and God really know where your heart is (and God knows it better than you).
So while I can’t, with 100% certainty, tell who is or is not truly saved (I can have an idea, based on one’s actions, their life’s fruit), I feel fairly certain that once a person’s heart is truly given to Jesus, they are saved for eternity.
So in a way, (and I just thought of this), maybe externally, as far as how I see others, each it is centered set. I can only discern other people’s ’savedness’ by the direction they are walking in life.
But maybe as far as myself looking inward (navel gazing as my buddy BD loves to say) it is more a bounded set. I can feel secure in my salvation if after understanding my inherent separation from God, I choose to confess that and solely depent on Him for my God connection.
Clear as mud?
October 16th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Observer, Actually documentation is there to examine on the issues you site. I did a sermon series titled “science and faith at the crossroads of creation” [much too long, by the way, live and learn!] in which I advocated for allowing theistic evolution as one of the acceptable approaches Christians take, and made it clear that it was my personal view, but that the church didn’t have a stance on it. Same with climate change. Sermon on that one online as well.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Observer, you make a good point. Especially on the taboo and conservative issues being placed in a less significant level than more ‘liberal’ and current culturally accepted issues.
I suspect, however, that this is an attempt to ‘counterbalance’ typical US evangelical thought, which seems to be off kilter in the conservative side, almost making belief in global warming or evolution incompatible with faith in Jesus.
Like you, I am skeptical of the current claims on human caused global warming and the deification of the theory of evolution. I have seen convincing evidence against both.
But these issues are so temporal and insignificant when compared with having a saving relationship with God that little is lost in deemphasizing them so they cease to be stumbling blocks to those who are attracted to Jesus.
The very fact we claim Jesus as the center is swimming against the culture, which says there is no center or truth.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Hostility, intolerance, pushiness, irritation, an overwhelming need to be right, an overwhelming need to define other others as wrong, as outside, as corruptive and corrosive. These are the personal strategies of some Christians one runs across, here and elsewhere. Jesus teaches a different way.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Joao, Thank you for the comments I agree with you completely. I have seen convincing evidence both ways on the issues of evolution and global warming, and agree that either view it has no significance in respect to the saving relationship with Christ. I only mentioned them to question why some “hot button” and politicized issues are acceptable to discuss in the church and others are not. The main issue that truly concerns me, of which I have seen no stance, discussion, or personal opinions on, is the issue of abortion. I understand that the Vineyard center is Jesus, the Bible and Love and we do not want to be divisive, but in this case perhaps the benefit is more significant.
I am not sure if this is one of the issues that would be considered off kilter or not. However, this is one issue I feel that there is a strong cultural current on, and if the church has no stance or opinion we drift with the culture. My understanding of Jesus and the Bible convince me that issues of justice and life are of significance to Jesus, however I gained this understanding in conjunction with a bounded set experience at a conservative church, prior to my attendance at the Vineyard.
I apologize if my discussion has drifted from the original intent of the posting.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:50 am
You can fiddle with sets while Rome burns, but every so called Christian who voted for Barack ought to be filling their days apologizing to the rest of us for, as is now 100% obvious, ushering the ENEMY into the Oval Office of the White House.
The last thing I’d ever expect on this blog is someone DEFENDING Obama Spokesperson Anita Dunn. But that’s EXACTLY what you can find here on this thread. Trying to draw a moral equivocation because she also praised Mother Theresa??
Bizarre, irrational. and quite frankly. despicable.
Obama was able to easily fool the masses because
heathen don’t know any better. Christians do.
Hmmm -Now that I’ve put it that way…
BD
PS But please… don’t let me stop you from continuing your circle—- of jovial obliviousness. I’m sure it makes you all FEEL really good about yourselves.
PS And if you don’t get the connection between the point I’m making & the topic of this (and what seems like the last DOZEN)threads…
…Than YOU’RE making my point for me.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
My dear brother BD.
In response to your last, seemingly angry note, where you seem to judge some of your brothers, questioning their faith, I can only quote the apostle Paul’s charge to the Roman believers, right after he lists some pagan sins.
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”
This quote has served to convict me of the same attitude I feel you have in your responses.
Joao