I am appreciating this conversation, so thank you for the post. As I've continued to think about it, I remembered a concept from "The Shaping of Things to Come," by @alanhirsch1 and Michael Frost. Do you know the book?
The theme of the book is the missional church, and a foundational concept is the "bounded set" vs. the "centered set." They say, "The attractional church is a bounded set. That is, it is a set of people clearly marked off from those who do not belong to it." They explain that churches typically establish mechanisms to determine "who's in and who's out."
Instead of this approach, they recommend the approach that puts Jesus at the center and invites people to move toward him from wherever they are. It's essentially "defining the center rather than patrolling the boundaries."
Further, they argue that the church should not require people to cross a cultural boundary into church culture before they can encounter the gospel... and this is often how we set up our churches. Does that resonate at all?
I get the distinction between good boundaries and bad boundaries, but I still can’t shake the feeling that boundaries are bad when it comes to the spiritual life and belonging.
There’s nothing wrong with clearly stating aspirational goals, but I don’t believe that any spiritual community (i.e. church, congregation) should put forth any boundaries to entry, other than simply the need to WANT to be “in.”
Even to tell someone, a spiritual “seeker,” for instance, that to be a part of our community, you must be willing to “stop doing x” seems antithetical to the nature of god. If god desires all to come to him, then we must let god do the drawing.
Our part is to remove any boundaries, which appears to be exactly the opposite of what is being argued here.
Now, if we are talking a Christian “ministry” with a particular function versus a congregation, I can see how some boundaries, even rules might be helpful.
what is church if we don’t say ‘here’s the boundary about what it means to be here’? ‘here’s what we believe?’
otherwise we’re either welcoming people into nothing - just show up … for what?
or we’re saying it doesn’t matter what you believe.
it *does* matter what we believe.
We believe very specifically in a triune God, in Jesus’ saving actions, in the Holy Spirit, present and active in our lives.
we live our lives in response to that.
if someone does not believe every part of this, they can still join us for worship, fellowship, and prayer. but they should know that these are our boundaries. and our calling - to share this with the world. if you’re a member, you’ve got work to do!
if we don’t spell this out, I don’t think it’s very welcoming at all. and when we do - then people know what they’re welcomed into.
I am appreciating this conversation, so thank you for the post. As I've continued to think about it, I remembered a concept from "The Shaping of Things to Come," by @alanhirsch1 and Michael Frost. Do you know the book?
The theme of the book is the missional church, and a foundational concept is the "bounded set" vs. the "centered set." They say, "The attractional church is a bounded set. That is, it is a set of people clearly marked off from those who do not belong to it." They explain that churches typically establish mechanisms to determine "who's in and who's out."
Instead of this approach, they recommend the approach that puts Jesus at the center and invites people to move toward him from wherever they are. It's essentially "defining the center rather than patrolling the boundaries."
Further, they argue that the church should not require people to cross a cultural boundary into church culture before they can encounter the gospel... and this is often how we set up our churches. Does that resonate at all?
i think churches have cultural boundaries. any close community does. i think that’s what’s being said here.
and that we want to be clear what our boundaries are.
i’m enjoying this conversation, too! thank you for continuing it.
Great article Loren! And i think this brings up many uncomfortable feelings for us.
I get the distinction between good boundaries and bad boundaries, but I still can’t shake the feeling that boundaries are bad when it comes to the spiritual life and belonging.
There’s nothing wrong with clearly stating aspirational goals, but I don’t believe that any spiritual community (i.e. church, congregation) should put forth any boundaries to entry, other than simply the need to WANT to be “in.”
Even to tell someone, a spiritual “seeker,” for instance, that to be a part of our community, you must be willing to “stop doing x” seems antithetical to the nature of god. If god desires all to come to him, then we must let god do the drawing.
Our part is to remove any boundaries, which appears to be exactly the opposite of what is being argued here.
Now, if we are talking a Christian “ministry” with a particular function versus a congregation, I can see how some boundaries, even rules might be helpful.
What am I missing?
The way I’d say it is this: New Jerusalem has walls, but the gates are always open.
Also, humans stopped constructing walled cities ages ago. Why would the “New Jerusalem” adopt this old approach?
But why does it need walls anyway?
what is church if we don’t say ‘here’s the boundary about what it means to be here’? ‘here’s what we believe?’
otherwise we’re either welcoming people into nothing - just show up … for what?
or we’re saying it doesn’t matter what you believe.
it *does* matter what we believe.
We believe very specifically in a triune God, in Jesus’ saving actions, in the Holy Spirit, present and active in our lives.
we live our lives in response to that.
if someone does not believe every part of this, they can still join us for worship, fellowship, and prayer. but they should know that these are our boundaries. and our calling - to share this with the world. if you’re a member, you’ve got work to do!
if we don’t spell this out, I don’t think it’s very welcoming at all. and when we do - then people know what they’re welcomed into.