A friend of mine wrote a guest editorial piece for the Grand Rapids Press entitled, “Discord need not divide believers.” It is a piece that reflects sentiments within the emerging church conversation to view belief in centered set vs. bounded set ways.
Here some of the text:
Right now, Christianity is seen as a set of beliefs. Believe the right stuff, and you are Christian. Step in this box with its bounded sides, and you are “in.” Step out of line, and you may be outside of the realm of what we consider “orthodox” or right belief. We live and work out of a bounded set constraint.
But there is another way.
A centered set paradigm places Jesus at the center and asks that we move toward him.
Your path may be different than my journey; your conclusions of what may be the best way to go may differ from mine, but that is really not a problem because I know you are headed toward God. I don’t assume you have to have the same set of beliefs as me to trust that you believe in Jesus.
In the case of the big three at Cornerstone, the truth is: All three are headed toward the Kingdom. I trust that. They need not be forced into making a stand or boxing one another in or out. In the centered set paradigm, a conciliatory mind-set replaces a dividing mind-set. As a Christian, I really don’t like seeing fights in the hall of my school. A new way of thinking can eliminate these troubling skirmishes.
I break bread frequently with the author and consider him a friend. I was slightly concerned, however, with a line of reasoning that has become endemic of the emerging church phenomenon, rhetoric a line of thinking which I find unusual within Christian Spirituality.
This line especially tweaked me: “I don’t assume you have to have the same set of beliefs as me to trust that you believe in Jesus.”
In starting a Th.M. class on the early church and beginning to read about men who were trying to hammer-out “a set of beliefs,” this rhetoric is becoming increasingly alarming for me. While i think there is room to talk about the nature of salvation, and while I understand the whole bounded/centered-set “thing” (landing somewhere between the two, myself…), without belief in “somethings” how do we know someone is really “heading toward God?” What does that even mean? As Roger Olson says, the story of Christian theology is a story about the reflection on salvation, and what it takes/means to be saved. In light of that realization, I’m beginning to understand how important the progression of belief really is to present day America.
Furthermore, why is it an either/or? Why cannot someone be bound by a set of beliefs while also pointing toward Christ? In other words, why can I not be a bounded-center oriented Christian? Someone who’s life and ambition is pointed toward Christ (centered-set), while being bound to some beliefs in order to call myself a Christian in the first place (bounded-set)? Isn’t it inevitable anyway, that we will be bound by “somethings?” If someone considers themselves a Christian or follower of Christ or Jesus-follower or whatever, there will inevitably be ideas and beliefs that bind us to that self-embraced title.
My questions to my friend this wednesday will be: “so what exactly are those ‘sets of belief?’ Why won’t we have a similar set of beliefs (or even the same ones) if we believe in Jesus? What does it mean to ‘head toward God?’ How do we know someone is ‘heading toward God?’ Is that the point? How different can our journeys look before we acknowledge that someone is on an African safari and someone an Amazon wilderness hike?”
This post isn’t meant to question my friend in particular, but to question the broader emerging church movement about its bounded/centered set belief dichotomy. How can we be centered on Christ without being bound be a certain set of beliefs? I don’t think it’s possible, and would question anyone who thinks that belief in Jesus precludes belief in somethings, even a set of beliefs.
‘we believe some things to be self evident’ is a familiar phrase that applies here. The self evident portion of this debate is that first of all–everyone believes in something…that’s fine, it normative, it’s not central to the paradigm I am proposing.
The crux lies in the next part, that is–Do I assume that you have to believe like me to be a person who is in the Way of Jesus? I believe the answer is no…in fact my own thinking has shifted over the years…so that what I once held as ‘truth’ may have shifted. Was I wrong back then? Am I wrong now? Maybe, maybe not. The point is I am on a journey and am convinced of the centrality of the Christ event as the event of the ages.
So many have drawn the wrong conclusion out of what I am trying to introduce…so I hope this helps.
One more thing I would like to add…and this is because we are friends. The word ‘rhetoric’ is sometimes defined as ‘language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous’. If you intend it in this way it is, at least to me, a bit of an offense. Take care.
An interesting post that reflects some of the sentiments that I expressed on a recent post myself. http://godspace.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-prayer-for-christian-unity/
I was wondering who the author referred to in the article is. Is is Stuart Murray from the UK. He talks about bonded and centred sets based on the work of Paul Hiebert.
Sorry about the use of ‘rhetoric,’ Daryl. Didn’t mean to offend, but that was a poor a choice of words. I didn’t mean that in the way it is often used…I changed it to “a line of thinking.”
Again, using ‘rhetoric’ was bad form. I’ll try to be more careful!
Just to carry the conversation on, Jeremy and Daryl, it seems many in the emerging community want Paul to have written “speak love truthfully” rather than “speak the truth in love.” For Paul there was some core truth which believers are to speak. Your union, JB, of “bounded-centered set” can be seen as “bounded” in a framework of core revealed truths and centered in the love of Jesus the Messiah, the incarnation of God.
I had written a long response and then lost it…boo!
First, sorry if you felt this was directed toward you. It really wasn’t meant to be a direct attack, but more of an engagement with the ideas you presented in your editorial. I guess in someways it is directed at you, then 🙂
Anyway, I think John hit it: there is this ‘pitting’ of speak love vs. speak truth, centered set vs. bounded set; this is a ‘pitting’ that I think is unnecessary. Why not speak both, embrace both?
Also, I wonder if you had written more to clarify what you meant by ‘set of beliefs’ people wouldn’t draw the wrong conclusions. Because my question is what does someone have to believe “to be a person who is in the Way of Jesus?” Sure we can quibble over baptism and eschatology and women’s role in the church. But what about the divinity of Christ? Resurrection? The exclusivity of Christ?
Are there somethings we need to be bound to in order to call ourselves Christ-followers? Isn’t even belief in Jesus a bounded set anyway? Isn’t it inevitable that there will be boundaries around which even the following of Jesus at the center are erected?
Hope these questions clarify what I meant above. And I hope we can chat in person about these soon!