ken wilson online

What drives a concern for thinking about set theory?  This is a sub-text in this ongoing conversation.  Maybe set theory is a ruse for being soft on sin.  We don’t want to obey the Bible’s teaching on sin, so we are trying to find a way around it, and set theory is a convenient sin dodge.  The bounded set seems to be driven by a concern for moral rigor or moral purity. Therefore any attempt to consider a different approach must be driven by a concern to accomodate to the surrounding culture when it comes to sin.

Or, thinking about set theory may be driven by the evangelical impulse.  The evangelical impulse is the desire to proclaim the good news so that as many people as possible can come to a saving faith in the dear Lord Jesus.

Let me just say it straight: if you come to this conversation with the fear that looking at set theory is driven by the desire to dodge the Bible, especially when it comes to the exacting demands of justice, righteousness, and holiness, then you will be extraordinarily nervous about the whole thing.

Of course, you may be right.  It’s very difficult to know what goes on in the human heart.  Motives are notoriously difficult to discern.  As Paul said, my conscience may be clear but that doesn’t mean I’m not guilty.  A person might think they are driven by one thing when in fact, they are driven by another.

I think my interest in this topic is driven by the evangelical impulse.  But I could be wrong.  You might think it’s driven by a different impulse.  You could be wrong, theoretically, at least.

It won’t be easy to have a reasoned discourse about this if you think that the motive for the discourse is suspect.

All I can say is this about that: this conversation about set theory began many years ago, at Fuller Theological Seminary.  It was raised by Paul Hiebert, a missiologist, meaning a guy who studies missions, and who presumably is laser focused on how the church can be most effective in doing our job to spread the gospel to every nook and cranny of creation.  John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard, was deeply affected by Hiebert’s thinking.  Wimber was a practioner, not a theorist.  He personally led hundreds, perhaps thousands of people into relationship with Jesus. The man was an evangelist long before he was an internationally known and controversial pastor.

Wimber used to say that the centered set approach was more effective in our culture than the bounded set approach because people in our culture are more like cats than cattle.  They resist efforts to round them up and fence them in.  You’re not very likely to draw them unless you take a “draw the cats back home” strategy: put a bowl of milk out and trust their little sniffers and their empty bellies to lead them home.

Tags: cats, cattle, centered sets, evangelical, fuller theological seminary, john wimber, milk, motives, paul hiebert, set theory

This entry was posted on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am and is filed under centered sets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.