What does it mean to be centered set?/ Peter Benedict

Perhaps the most important piece of my growth in Blue Ocean style ministry has been the idea that we are a centered set movement. Instead of building walls, guarding our boundaries, and focusing our efforts on getting people over the wall, I’m on a mission to point people toward Jesus.

I found this idea immediately helpful in my ministry to teens in the early ‘00s. It clicked, and sharing it seemed to set teens free to love other teens without feeling guilty about whether they shared common beliefs about life. And I’ve been set free too: I don’t worry about winning people to my point of view anymore, or at least I don’t worry nearly as much as I used to. Instead, I work to head toward Jesus, and to invite others to do the same. If they don’t take me up on an invitation, Jesus isn’t going anywhere, and he’ll keep waiting for them.

I think my initial attraction to the centered set was pragmatic: “Hey, doing this is a lot more fun than working on boundaries, and it frees me up to skip over some painful topics, yay!” But our church staff was recently confronted with one of those painful topics, and we worked through it for a year, at cost for all of us. Now we’re on the other side, and I am ready to evangelize for the centered set. I think it’s not only pragmatic and easy to practice, it’s deep and can weather storms that batter my foundation. The practice of continuing to turn toward Jesus, and the discipline of inviting others to do the same instead of condemning them for the ways their beliefs diverge from mine, has brought me to a place of greater faith in Jesus.

But I wonder: How much reflection have we done on what this means?

My church has a monthly Theology Pub, in which we read a book and talk about it at a local bar. We spent 2010 looking at a lot of books about reconciliation, the best of which (by far) was Miroslav Volf’s “Exclusion and Embrace,” in which Volf plumbs the philosophical and theological depths of forgiveness and presents a compelling case that Christianity provides the basis for forgiveness. Finishing his book, I felt like I understood reconciliation more fully than I’d have thought possible.

Has anyone similarly plumbed the depths of the call to practice centered set faith? Has anyone examined it philosophically and theologically, and its implications for life, service, sharing the Good News, ethics, morality, and the like?

If so, I’d love to read, listen, and hear what’s been discovered. And I’d love to hear you, or anyone interested, speculate on the answers to some of the questions I’m asking in my heart. What does the centered set say about the nature of human existence? What does it mean for our relationship to church history, to the Bible, to other Christians, and to the world? Where are the areas of tension where you feel it might be best to stick to something other than pointing toward Jesus?

I recently proposed to some friends an idea that feels simultaneously vaguely blasphemous and incredibly appealing. What if, when I experience a tension between what I understand of the Bible and what I understand of Christ… what if I choose to follow Jesus? Where would I end up, and why do I suspect that I’d end up in a different place than I stand now?

What do you think? What impact has the centered set had on your practice, and where would embracing this concept wholeheartedly take you?

Comments

[Adam]

Peter, an important question in the above "hypothetical" is the following: In what way(s) is your understanding of Jesus mediated outside the Bible?

[doug erickson]

pete, that's a great read. many ++'s on the value of pursuing CS spiritual change, and the fearful territory we are now in when we dump the safe boundaries. "simultaneously vaguely blasphemous and incredibly appealing" EXACTLY my thoughts as well.

i would welcome your input on a couple of questions that i have been mulling in this whole deal: 1. what COUNTS as trajectory, and 2. what COUNTS as movement? in other words, it's quite easy to say, "movement towards the center = becoming more like jesus" but the contested center is defining precisely what "becoming more like jesus" actually LOOKS like- otherwise center-set spirituality becomes self-referential.
3. finally, does it matter? that is to say, one could simply discount 1 & 2 as being leftover remnants of my poor bounded-set upbringing. we could say, "trajectory and velocity are not for us to decide, that is for the center to adjudicate". perhaps, but if this is so, is there a point at which we move from a center-set to a fuzzy set? (no center)

what i mean is this: we posit that the "center" has dynamism, energy, and can do it's own work- hence we are freed from the (ultimately futile) task of driving or compelling spiritual change- as the preacher says, "stop helping God across the street like a little old lady". our job is to point, direct each other towards the center, and it's the centre's job to carry the rest of the weight.

it seems like there should be a tension here between bounded sets and fuzzy sets. we know how to distinguish between bounded sets...how do we (should we?) distinguish ourselves from fuzzy sets?
blessings,
doug

[Peter Benedict]

A great question, and one I've got a lot to learn about.

When I think about the answers that jump to mind (prayer, tradition, God directly speaking in some way, seeing love through the actions of others, etc.), they all have the potential to be my own voice speaking to reinforce what I want to hear from God.

Then again, though... so does the Bible.

In response to your question, I wonder: How does the Bible mediate your understanding of Jesus? How does that process differ from any other way of understanding Christ?

[Vic Holtz]

Centered set = We take anyone who is looking for God

[Peter Benedict]

I agree.

Would you be up for answering a further question (or 20, I have 20!)? Where do we end up if we take that approach forward and stick to it?

[Catina]

We recently started going to a new church, Without Walls. They have a similar belief. As for me, I've grown up, for the most part, without walls. At the same time, the depth of relationship I have with others largely depends on their relationship with Jesus.

[steven hamilton]

Peter, I so appreciate you pressing into this! I too have found the sort of freedom you're talking about with respect to it, but I have also found myself challenged, because I'm always trying to discern "they will know me by my love...what's loving in this situation?" that's actually a difficult thing to always discern...equally in the church, I'm always thinking: has _____ de-centered Jesus in our lives? (insert, church/community/Bible/etc.)

I'm all-in on centered-set, but it's been challenging...

BTW - you asked about books about centered-set, here is Paul Hiebert's book, from which most of us get our framework initially: http://www.amazon.com/Anthropological-Reflections-Missiological-Issues-Hiebert/dp/0801043948

[steven hamilton]

just a quick addition, although I'm not sure he mentions a whole lot about "centered-set", Lesslie Newbigin - particularly his books The Gospel in a Pluralist Society and The Open Secret - has been really helpful in this trajectory:

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Pluralist-Society-Lesslie-Newbigin/dp/0802804268/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323774728&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Open-Secret-Introduction-Theology-Mission/dp/0802808298/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323774728&sr=1-2

[Luke]

Since having a convo on the Internet may occur quicker than the next time we can drink a beer together, here are some initial thoughts and reflections...

First, I appreciate your thoughts. It is fun to read them.

"What does the centered set say about the nature of human existence?"

This is kind of a "loaded" question to ask amongst a variety of Christians because there's a wide variety of ways to approach it. Christians have historically started by looking at Scripture and then reflecting on what is often observed and experienced, etc.

I'm an advocate for Centered Set sociological thinking, but I also think it depends on how one understands those concepts. It's easy to see how ineffective Fuzzy Set or Bounded Set methods are in today's culture, but that doesn't necessarily equate to Centered Set being the only option. In fact, I think the Centered Set model will evolve as people think through these issues, which is why this site (and others) are so important.

Does the Centered Set model ignore Original Sin (Total Depravity for us Reformed folks) and just camp out on Imago Dei? Personally, I think we need to keep the tension between those two concepts as starting points when thinking about human existence. I'm obviously not a Pelagian... so my assumptions may be different then others.

What does it mean for our relationship to church history, to the Bible, to other Christians, and to the world?

Great question. Don't have the time to weigh in fully, but I think Centered Set should cause us to be a bit more humble in the way we interact, read and interpret history, and approach Scripture/Theology. Regarding the way we approach the world, we go back to the approach Jesus had, which the apostles followed, and Scripture reveals.

Where are the areas of tension where you feel it might be best to stick to something other than pointing toward Jesus?

I'm not really sure I'm reading this question correctly. Is it okay to say, "None"? I mean, if we can flesh out what is meant by "Jesus" and come to the conclusion that "Jesus" includes pointing people to the gospel and the accomplishments of Christ at the cross and the various motifs associated with redemption, than I'm a fan of keeping Jesus as the center, always.

I always tell people that even though the gospel is the same for everyone, it is fleshed out differently in a variety of complex ways. In other words, the way that people apply the gospel in their situations doesn't exactly "look the same," right? More can be said about that... but, you get my point, I hope.

What if, when I experience a tension between what I understand of the Bible and what I understand of Christ… what if I choose to follow Jesus? Where would I end up, and why do I suspect that I’d end up in a different place than I stand now?

I'm afraid that my "conservative evangelicalness" initially cringes at this question, so I hope you feel good knowing that you have effectively accomplished that :) ha ha.

On a serious note, I simply don't see a tension between what Scripture says and what I know about Jesus.

Traditionally, I think people end up in really dangerous or heterdox or cultic places when they take that too far. I'm not suggesting you are, but that's certainly one way to understand it.

However, since you made mention of how YOU understand the Bible, I think we're getting into the issue of hermeneutics, and specifically with how exegesis shapes our thinking, etc.

SOOOOOOO, my initial cringing is gone, because plenty of really solid Christians have learned the same thing. In fact, in Jesus day there were quite a few people who misunderstood the Hebrew Scriptures until Jesus came along.

Great discussion. Time to go now... :)

[doug erickson]

jeez pete look at what you started haha.

in thinking about your comment:
"What if, when I experience a tension between what I understand of the Bible and what I understand of Christ… what if I choose to follow Jesus?"

i guess my first response would be (betraying my strong postmodern sympathies) BOTH your reading/understanding of the bible AND your understanding (via encounter/experience i assume?)are perspectival and conditioned - there is no "view from nowhere" which can adjudicate between these- its intrinsic to our creaturely finitude as already/not yet people.

i think we are most often aware of this in the reverse- at times it appears that the claims of the bible (god is loving compassionate, and able to help) don't match up with the crushing realities of existence- as a pastor i know your familiar with this one!

[Peter Benedict]

@Doug: I agree wholeheartedly that my understanding of each is necessarily personal/conditioned/etc, and that any tension between the two grows from my perspective.

My proposal springs from my experience (ha), which is that the preponderance of pastors I've known and leadership I've experienced respond to that tension by encouraging me & others to go with the Bible, because it's somehow "clearer," perhaps assuming the Bible is the view from nowhere or freer from bias.

I've been reflecting on this tension by asking myself: How do Christians (and how do I) justify behaving obnoxiously toward others? I can think of hundreds of real-life examples that boil down to "because of my understanding of the Bible" without any effort; I can think of none, yet, that boil down to "because this is who Jesus is." For some reason, it seems to me that grasping the story of Christ is relatively simple (God sacrificing Himself), whereas grasping the Bible seems much more challenging.

@Luke: Seriously, you are awesome. I loved our chat at Celt's, and I'd love to do it again. Thank you for answering all my questions! I wish I'd done a better job of making those questions clear and primary to my post. I'd like to talk some of the issues you raise (total depravity in tension with imago dei, Pelagianism) in person... or we could just turn this thread into a tapestry.

It sounds to me like you feel you've got something like a complete harmony in your understandings of Jesus and of the Bible. If that's the case... well, I'd like to hear more. Am I hearing you correctly?

In my case, I very rarely experience tension between the two, but it still happens. I've been conditioned to treat my view of Christ as suspect, and my view of the Bible as primary... but when I think about some of the larger mistakes I've made in loving others, they've come (I now believe, at least) out of that same process.

Lots more to respond to, and to ask further, but I've got to hang out with Celebrate Recovery, which is coming together around me as I write. Peace!

[steven hamilton]

have you all read this article by Eric Weiner?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/americans-and-god.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

It strikes me that while he's looking for a centered-set approach as, "a new way of being religious..."

[Luke]

It sounds to me like you feel you've got something like a complete harmony in your understandings of Jesus and of the Bible. If that's the case... well, I'd like to hear more. Am I hearing you correctly?

I wouldn't state it nearly as overtly modernistic as that. Ha ha! I like the word "harmony" when it is properly defined and dislike the word "complete." Allow me to flesh that out a bit...

As we study historical theology, we realize that theologians have attempted to "harmonize" different aspects of doctrine as well texts of Scripture in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, the purpose of such harmonies has often been driven by a presupposition to "protect" more than to reflect on the evidence. Thus, some of the early "gospel harmonies" that tried to integrate a "storyline" between the four gospels were quite suspect, ignoring the internal evidence (e.g., how many times did Jesus cleanse the temple? or did Jesus preach the beatitudes on a mountain or a plain?). Basically, a lot of "harmony" has been motivated by fear and some of the answers and responses to proposed "biblical contradictions" are routinely answered with ridiculously shallow responses, not taking into account the primary and foundational starting point of hermeneutics (exegesis and contextualization) - authorial intent. As I've poured over texts and alleged contradictions and issues that are raised by church history or systematic theology, I've found that those issues primarily evaporate with a proper understanding of hermeneutics and how authorial intent actually functions and in understanding how writers wrote in the ancient world, be it the Hebrew or the Greek.

I don't like the word "complete" because it can imply that there is no longer a "theological struggle" going on. It implies that it's all worked out in my mind and that I've got it all figured out. I guess I'm not comfortable with suggesting that.

But I AM comfortable suggesting that as I've studied Scripture for the majority of my life and have been stretched by both formal training and the daily questions that arise out of pastoral ministry, I've not found anything that causes tension between my understanding of Christ and my understanding of Scripture. In my experience, those are not mutually exclusive concepts. That's not to say that they are in anyone else's mind either.

I also have a huge amount of respect for our evangelical forefathers, as well as the historic church as a whole and I think that there is a consensus throughout church history that leads me to see unity between Jesus and Scripture and how we are to reflect and act upon those ideas.

So do I have a harmony? Given what I've interact with, yes. I see them as unified.

Is it complete? No. I think it is foolish to stop struggling through these issues because theological struggle produces better understandings and can also help lead towards church unity.

Oops. I typed too much. Back to studying...

[Prashant]

"What if, when I experience a tension between what I understand of the Bible and what I understand of Christ… what if I choose to follow Jesus?"

Then you would make the wise & correct choice in my opinion. Why is that controversial? Better respond to the living Word, than to any static snapshot.

I should clarify that I strongly value the Bible and the understanding of it that comes through study and tradition. But I have learned to be mistrustful of my static interpretation at any point in time. And if there were good reason (for example "what I understand of Christ") to change that static, I would go for it.

[Peter Benedict]

Thanks for the article, Steven. I particularly love the conclusion:

"We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us."

Good words for this community, I imagine? I particularly like the celebration of doubt; it was a theme in our recent preaching on healing. Tangentially: Why do so few Christians know the verse that comes before the Great Commission? It seems as important to me as what follows. I imagine Weiner would love it.

[Peter Benedict]

"Traditionally, I think people end up in really dangerous or heterdox or cultic places when they take that too far."

I agree. I think, however, if you substitute "traditionally, I think people end up in really dangerous or heterodox or cultic places when they take the primacy of scripture too far," I'd also be in agreement.

I think the tension between relationship with God and relationship with scripture gets collapsed too often, and collapsing it in either direction doesn't work. My proposal, in line perhaps with Prashant's comment below, is that going with guidance from God might be undervalued.

[Luke]

Peter... in response to your comment that has yet to actually show up on my browser, I say: absolutely. It's the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. Lots of Christians confuse those two, and it's quite dangerous!

[steven hamilton]

Peter - I also seems to me that the centered-set approach could be the "new way of being religious" that Weiner refers to in the quote...