Maybe it’s not an either/or issue — maybe a set needs a center *and* a boundary.

You’re framing “belonging before believing” as a center vs. boundary issue, but I think it could (maybe should) be reframed as a center *focus* that forces a redrawing of the traditional boundary. (Or maybe it’s possible to have boundary w/o center — and therefore, w/o direction — but not center without boundary). It could be that all sets have boundaries, but the divide is between “centered” and “centerless.”

The fact that you have atheists, homosexuals, and Buddhists as part of your church doesn’t mean the church doesn’t have an in/out boundary; it just means the boundary isn’t in the traditional spot. Richard Dawkins is not a part of your church, by any reckoning, correct? (Not that he wouldn’t be welcome — but at the moment he doesn’t seem to want to come.) But Buddhist X is a part of your church. In boundary terms, Dawkins is outside, and Buddhist X is inside. The boundary may be “I want to be part of this” — but it’s still a boundary.

As to heathens and tax collectors: A person who is put out of the church is being loved, no question — but he’s being loved by being expelled from the assembly, in order that he might repent and be restored. If you’ve no boundary, how do you obey this command (cf. 1 Cor. 5, etc.)?

His,
Tim

Good question (and good to hear from you!). The way I currently view it, all sets by definition have some sort of defining characteristic. Without a “center” or a “boundary” there is no such thing as a set.

I like the idea of a centered set because it seems to be more directional. All in a centered set are constantly swirling around and moving ever closer (hopefully) toward the center, which in a “church set” is Jesus.

A centered set, I think, has a feeling of “arrival” (Once you’re in, you can just sit and soak) while a centered set has a feeling of “movement” (We’re all on a journey and need each other for the road ahead).

I don’t know if this helps any. The best way I have come to understand this is to actually be a part of a “centered set” church. The church I currently am part of has atheists, buddhists, homosexuals, etc etc and all are encouraged to join in the activity, serve, interact and get involved. All, however, are constantly challenged to consider the claims and teachings of Jesus, while also being allowed to voice their disagreements and criticisms.

Regarding Matthew 18:17, how should we be treating “heathens” and “tax collectors”? How about the same way Jesus did…by loving them, serving them, and drawing them ever nearer to Himself.

This sounds intriguing, but I’m having trouble getting my head around it. What would “let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector” (Mt.18:17) look like if there is no boundary?

It seems as if in your own discussion, you’re having trouble discussing this without boundary-language as well: “Anybody can be part of a Centered Set as long as they want to live like Jesus, love like Jesus, and learn from Jesus.” Everything after “as long as” sounds to me like the condition one would have to fulfill in order to be part of the church — want to live/love/learn Jesus — that is, the boundary.

Did I miss something here?